An appellate authority cannot suo motu enhance punishment without a pending appeal or express statutory authority.

The applicant was employed by the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) as a contractual conductor.

Following allegations of ticket irregularities and related misconduct, the disciplinary authority issued a show-cause notice and imposed a penalty of ₹5,000 on 22 December 2023.

The applicant did not appeal and served the penalty.

On 16 December 2024, the Regional Manager (South), describing himself as the appellate authority, issued a notice proposing to withdraw that penalty and terminate the applicant’s contract.

The Regional Manager confirmed termination by order dated 1 March 2025, communicated on 5 March 2025.

No regular inquiry had been held.

Whether the Regional Manager could, in the absence of a pending appeal, exercise suo motu power to review and enhance the disciplinary authority’s penalty.

Whether termination founded on alleged misconduct, and carrying a stigma, could be imposed without a regular inquiry.

In S.S. Bhatia v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 79 (1999) DLT 461, the Delhi High Court held that under the DTC Standing Orders an appellate authority may enhance punishment only when an appeal is before it; the rules do not confer suo motu review power in the absence of a pending appeal.

The Tribunal also relied on Ram Naresh v. DTC (Delhi High Court, 23 May 2006), which had considered that principle, and Amar Jeet Singh v. DTC & Ors., O.A. No. 217/2023 (CAT, 5 May 2025), upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court, concerning stigmatic and punitive termination of contractual employees without a regular inquiry.

The Tribunal noted that the respondents had not shown that the relevant rules had since been amended to confer the asserted suo motu power.

The applicant had not appealed the ₹5,000 penalty, and no appeal was pending when the Regional Manager initiated the review.

Applying S.S. Bhatia, the Tribunal found no authority in the DTC rules for the Regional Manager to reopen the matter and enhance the penalty on his own initiative.

It also found the termination order to be stigmatic and punitive, based on alleged misconduct, while no regular inquiry had been conducted.

In light of the principles applied in Amar Jeet Singh, the termination could not be sustained.

It set aside the orders dated 1 and 5 March 2025 and the show-cause notice dated 16 December 2024.

It directed DTC to reinstate the applicant from the date of termination and grant consequential benefits, including 50% back wages, preferably within four weeks of receipt of the certified order.

DTC remained at liberty to initiate proceedings, if it chose, strictly in accordance with law; there was no order as to costs.