Delhi HC Finds Inquiry Fair After Delhi Transco Worker Twice Admitted Hiding Criminal Cases on Job Form, Sends Dismissal Dispute Back

Nirmal Kumar, a daily-wage employee later regularised as an Assistant Line Mate, was removed from service after the management alleged that he had concealed four criminal cases in his attestation form.

In the disciplinary enquiry, he admitted the charge, including that he had given false information out of fear of losing his job; he repeated the admission in the presence of his defence assistant.

The Labour Court nevertheless held, as a preliminary issue, that the enquiry was unfair because the management had led no evidence after the admission and the workman had not been given a further opportunity to present his defence.

The management challenged that ruling under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Under Articles 226 and 227, judicial review is not appellate; intervention is warranted where an order is without jurisdiction, perverse, or contrary to natural justice (Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan).

Although Cooper Engineering Ltd. v. P.P. Mundhe and D.P. Maheshwari v. Delhi Administration caution against interlocutory challenges to preliminary findings that may delay industrial adjudication, they do not impose an absolute bar on writ review.

Under Central Bank of India v. Karunamoy Banerjee, where a workman admits the charge, requiring the employer to lead evidence may be an empty formality, though natural justice must otherwise be observed.

Channabasappa Basappa Happali v. State of Mysore and Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Ltd. v. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri establish that an admission of the material facts may prove the charge even when accompanied by an explanation; Manoj H. Mishra v. Union of India confirms that a delinquent cannot resile from an unequivocal admission.

The Court rejected the prematurity objection because the preliminary issue had been framed to correct an omission, the dispute concerned the legal effect of recorded admissions, and a further delay would not advance the expeditious resolution of the industrial dispute.

On the merits, the workman answered “Yes” when specifically asked whether he admitted the charge, explained that he had supplied wrong information out of fear of losing his job, repeated the admission in his defence assistant’s presence, and acknowledged it in his representation against the enquiry report.

The explanation did not negate the admission; it could be considered in relation to the penalty.

The Court also found that the defence assistant was invited to submit a defence brief and did so, and that the enquiry record showed no request to examine the person who had filled in the form.

The cases relied on by the Labour Court were distinguishable because, unlike here, they did not involve a clear admission recorded by the Inquiry Officer.

It allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, held the enquiry fair and proper, and decided the preliminary issue against the workman.

The matter was remanded to the Labour Court to determine the remaining issues in accordance with law; the Court expressed no view on the merits of those issues or the relief due.

The parties were directed to appear before the Labour Court on 1 December 2026.