Delhi District Court
Mr. Yog Raj vs M/S Delhi Transport Corporation on 1 May, 2007
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. NISHA SAXENA,
PRESIDING OFFICER FAST TRACK COURT -XXI,
KARKARDOOMA, SHAHDARA, DELHI
ID No. 02/06/98
Mr. Yog Raj,
Driver,
B. No. 13306,
R/o Village Savoli,
P.O. Nand Nagri,
Delhi.
......Workman
Versus
M/s Delhi Transport Corporation,
I.P. Estate,
New Delhi-110002
(through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director).
.....Management.
Appearance : AR for the workman Sh. G.S. Charya.
AR for the management Sh. Raj Rishi.
ORDER
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of enquiry issue which is in the following terms :-
2
1. Whether a proper and fair enquiry was not conducted as per principles of natural justice?
2. In brief facts of the case are that workman had been appointed as a driver with the management in 1983. He was charged on 24.1.1996 on the allegations that he was absent from duty unauthorizedly for 222 days. A domestic enquiry was conducted against him on the basis of which he was removed from services w.e.f. 06.08.1996. The workman has challenged the enquiry proceedings on the ground that it was in violation of principles of natural justice and the findings given by the Enquiry Officer are perverse.
3. On the enquiry issue, both parties have led oral as well as documentary evidence. The workman examined himself as WW1 and proved his affidavit as Ex. WW1/A. On behalf of management, Shri Tara Chand, Enquiry Officer was examined as MW1 who proved the charge sheet as MW1/M1 and the enquiry proceedings as Ex. MW1/M2 and MW1/M3.3
4. I have heard AR for workman Shri G.S. Charya and AR for the management Shri Raj Rishi and gone through the entire record.
5. The enquiry proceedings Ex. WW1/M2 reflect that at the outset, the workman was given an opportunity to take help of a co-
worker for which he declined. Charge sheet was read over and explained to him and was asked if he admitted the charges. He, without any fear or pressure admitted his guilt and explained the reasons as to why he had taken so many leaves. He explained that he had been ill for quite sometime and his wife was also suffering from TB and his daughter had also been ill for the last ten months due to which she had to be admitted in the hospital twice. Two members of his family died, as a result of which he had taken leaves. In his cross-examination, WW1 has admitted that he received charge sheet Ex. WW1/M1. He admitted his signatures on the enquiry proceedings Ex. WW1/M2. He admitted that he was given copy of findings Ex. WW1/M3. However, later he denied the same. He stated that he made a complaint regarding the manner of enquiry which is Ex. WW1/M4. Ex. WW1/M4 reflects that he had 4 complained to the Depot Manager that the enquiry proceedings was recorded by typist and no Enquiry Officer was present. However, the Enquiry Officer was examined as a management witness who stated that he had conducted enquiry against the workman but there is no suggestion to him that he was not present when the proceedings were recorded. It has been submitted by AR for the workman that the workman was not supplied with list of witnesses nor any documents. However, the management did not examine any witness and workman himself admitted the charges. Therefore, there was no occasion for supply of any list of witnesses of examination of any witness before the enquiry officer. I am supported in my opinion by 1997 LAB. I.C. 187 Lakshminarayana vs. The Karnataka State Seeds Corporation Ltd where the court observed :-
"The rule that the charge-sheeted employee should not be asked to lead evidence in the beginning is not absolute rule and the rule has some exceptions also. The burden of proving every charge during enquiry proceedings rests on the employer and unless the evidence in support of the charge is led during enquiry, the charge-sheeted employee has nothing to explain, but this rule would not apply when the charge-sheeted officer had admitted the guilt during preliminary 5 investigation and in the replies filed to the charge memo when the accused-official accepts guilt on his own without duress, pressure or coercion from any quarters, to insist upon the management to lead evidence would be empty formality."
6. As regards the non-compliance of circular of DTC, the workman has been unable to show as to how the violation of principles of provision caused any prejudice to him. Unless the delinquent official is prejudicated by violation of some procedural rule, the enquiry proceedings cannot be set aside. If no prejudice is caused to them resulting from the non-violation of any procedural rules, non-interference is called for. I am supported in my opinion by State Bank of Patiala vs. S.K. Sharma 1997 LLR 268. The Enquiry Officer has considered the statement given by the workman while recording his findings Ex. WW1/M3. The workman has nowhere controverted the allegations in the chargesheet that he was absent for 222 days unauthorizedly for the period 1.1.95 to 31.12.95. I do not find any violation of principles of natural justice or perversity in the findings. Accordingly, I hold that a proper and fair enquiry was conducted against the workman as per the principles of 6 natural justice. Issue no. 1 is accordingly decided in favour of the management and against the workman.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON : 01.05.2007 (NISHA SAXENA) POLC/FTC-XXI, Karkardooma Courts, Shahdara Delhi.
7