D.T.C. vs Rajender Prashad

$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
nd
% Date of Decision: 2 September, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010644462005
+ W.P.(C) 11107/2005
D.T.C. .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Manisha Tyagi, Adv.
versus
RAJENDER PRASHAD .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Rishabh Verma and Mr.
Anil Aggarwal, Advs. with the
respondent in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)
1. By this petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of
India, the Petitioner has assailed the correctness of the award dated
24.03.2004 (hereinafter ‘ impugned award ’) passed by the learned
Industrial Tribunal, allowing the claim of the Respondent workman.
2. Briefly stated, the respondent workman was working as a
conductor with the petitioner department. It is alleged that on
15.11.1994 the respondent was on duty when his bus was checked by
the checking staff and it was found that the respondent had taken the
due fare of ₹67/- from a group of three and a half passengers but had
failed to issue tickets to three passengers. In pursuance of the same, the
respondent was placed under suspension on 02.12.1994 and a charge
sheet dated 02.12.1994 was issued to the respondent workman.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:03.09.2026
17:32:21

3. Thereafter, enquiry proceedings were conducted against the
respondent department and the enquiry officer vide order dated found
that the charges alleged against the respondent workman were not
established. However, the disciplinary authority disagreed with the
findings of the enquiry officer and found that the charges stood proved
against the respondent workman. The disciplinary authority further
issued show cause notice dated 05.06.1995 for removal of the
respondent from services.
4. The respondent filed a Writ Petition before this Court
challenging the said show cause notice, however, the said petition was
dismissed. Thereafter, the respondent filed a reply to the show cause
notice before the authority, however, the same was not found
satisfactory and the disciplinary authority passed the punishment of
removal from services against the respondent with effect from
14.08.1996.
5. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent workman filed an appeal
before the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the petitioner
department, who set aside the punishment of removal and directed that
the respondent may be reinstated in service with no back wages for the
intervening period and he be brought back to the initial stage of his time
scale for two years from the date of the original punishment.
6. The respondent workman thereafter joined back the services of
the petitioner and then raised an industrial dispute against the modified
punishment awarded to him. The same was referred to the Industrial
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:03.09.2026
17:32:21

Tribunal with the following terms of reference:
“1. Whether the punishment imposed upon Sh. Rajender Prashad to
bring him on initial pay scale of conductor for two years is illegal
and/or justified and if so to what relief is he entitled and what
directions are necessary in this respect?
2. Whether Sh. Rajender Prashad is entitled to intervening period
wages w.e.f. 14.8.96 to 13.1.98 and if so what directions are
necessary in this respect?”
7. The learned Tribunal vide the impugned order observed that the
punishment imposed upon the respondent workman was illegal and
without any basis, further observing that the workman was entitled to
his wages on his regular pay scale and for arrears of the reduced wages
imposed to bring him to the initial pay scale for the period for two years
along with regular wages for the period from 14.08.1996 to 13.01.1998.
8. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition has been filed.
9. This Court vide order dated 11.07.2005 granted stay to the effect
and operation of the impugned award.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned
Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the modified punishment
awarded to the respondent workman pursuant to the order of Chairman-
cum-Managing Director of the petitioner department.
11. She submits that the Industrial Tribunal can only interfere with
the punishment accorded by the management only when it is satisfied
that the punishment imposed by the management is highly
disproportionate to the degree of guilt of the workman concerned. She
submits that the punishment accorded to the respondent workman in the
present case does not meet that threshold and thus, the learned Tribunal
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:03.09.2026
17:32:21

erred in passing the impugned award.
12. Per Contra , the learned counsel for the respondent vehemently
opposes the present petition and submits that no ground has been raised
by the petitioner so as to warrant interference of this Court under Article
226 of the Constitution.
13. I have heard the counsel and perused the record.
14. At the outset, it is necessary to note that the scope of interference
under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with an Award
passed by the Industrial Tribunal is limited. Interference is warranted
only where the Award suffers from patent illegality, perversity or an
error apparent on the face of the record. The present petition does not
invite this Court to re-appreciate the evidence or disturb findings of fact
but is confined to examining the legality and propriety of the relief
granted by the Industrial Tribunal.
15. The learned Tribunal has found, on appreciation of the pleadings
and evidence, that the respondent workman had consistently pleaded
that the enquiry officer had exonerated him of the charges, noting that
the charges had been maliciously levelled against the workman.
Significantly, the petitioner neither controverted this assertion nor
placed the enquiry proceedings or the enquiry report before the
Tribunal.
16. It is no doubt correct that the Disciplinary Authority is entitled to
disagree with the findings of the enquiry officer. However, where the
findings are in favour of the delinquent, such disagreement must be
tentative and the reasons for disagreement, along with the findings of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:03.09.2026
17:32:21

the enquiry officer, must be communicated to the delinquent so as to
afford him an opportunity to make a representation before a final
decision is taken.
17. In the present case, no such disagreement note containing
tentative reasons for disagreement with the findings of the enquiry
officer was issued to the respondent workman. Instead, the Disciplinary
Authority straightaway issued the show-cause notice dated 05.06.1995
proposing the penalty of removal from service. The show-cause notice,
therefore, proceeded on the basis of a decision already arrived at by the
Disciplinary Authority and could not constitute the opportunity
contemplated in law.
18. In these circumstances, the conclusion of the learned Tribunal
that there was no lawful basis for imposing the punishment upon the
respondent workman cannot be said to be perverse or legally
unsustainable. The said finding is based on the material placed before
the Tribunal, including the failure of the management to produce the
enquiry report or otherwise establish any lawful disagreement with the
findings of the enquiry officer.
19. As regards the workman’s entitlement to wages for the period
from 14.08.1996 to 13.01.1998, the learned Tribunal noted that
although the workman was initially removed from service on
14.08.1996, the Appellate Authority subsequently modified the
punishment on 13.01.1998 to reduction to the initial stage of the pay
scale of Conductor for a period of two years, while maintaining
continuity of service. The Tribunal further observed that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:03.09.2026
17:32:21

management had failed to place any material to justify withholding the
wages for the intervening period and, accordingly, held that the
workman was entitled to wages for the said period, as also the
differential amount arising from his having been placed at the initial
stage of the pay scale for two years. In view of the aforesaid, the finding
of the learned Tribunal with regard to payment of wages for the
intervening period cannot be said to be erroneous or perverse.
20. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the view taken by the Tribunal
is a reasonable and plausible view on the facts of the case and, therefore,
calls for no interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
21. It is also necessary to note that the petitioner Department has
been litigating the issue of payment of 17 months’ back wages to the
respondent for the last 32 years. The continued litigation over such a
limited claim, for an inordinately long period, amounts to an abuse of
the process of law and has resulted in avoidable expenditure of public
money.
22. The manner in which the present proceedings have been pursued,
despite the limited nature of the claim, warrants imposition of costs
upon the concerned officers.
23. Accordingly, costs of ₹1,00,000/- shall be paid by the petitioner
Department, out of which ₹25,000/- shall be paid to the DHLSC;
₹50,000/- to the PM Relief Fund; and ₹25,000/- to the Respondent.
Department is at liberty recover the cost from the Officer responsible
for pursuing such insignificant dispute.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:03.09.2026
17:32:21

24. The present petition is dismissed.
25. Pending applications (if any) also stand disposed of.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
SEPTEMBER 2, 2026
‘KDK’
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:03.09.2026
17:32:21