Disciplinary authority must communicate tentative disagreement and reasons before penalising an exonerated employee.

Rajender Prashad, a conductor employed by the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC), was alleged to have collected ₹67 from passengers but failed to issue tickets to three passengers during a bus inspection on 15 November 1994.

He was suspended and charge-sheeted on 2 December 1994.

Although the Enquiry Officer found the charges unproved, the Disciplinary Authority disagreed and issued a show-cause notice proposing removal from service without communicating a tentative disagreement note or reasons.

The respondent was ultimately removed from service with effect from 14 August 1996.

On appeal, the punishment was modified to reinstatement without back wages and reduction to the initial stage of the conductor’s pay scale for two years.

The respondent thereafter raised an industrial dispute concerning the modified punishment and his entitlement to wages for the intervening period.

The Industrial Tribunal held the punishment unlawful and directed payment of regular wages and the differential amount arising from the pay-scale reduction.

DTC challenged the award under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Whether the Industrial Tribunal was justified in holding that the punishment of reduction to the initial stage of the conductor’s pay scale for two years was illegal and unjustified

Whether the respondent was entitled to wages for the period from 14 August 1996 to 13 January 1998 and the consequential differential pay

Whether the Tribunal’s award warranted interference by the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution

The High Court applied the limited scope of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227, under which interference with an Industrial Tribunal’s award is warranted only for patent illegality, perversity, or an error apparent on the face of the record, and not for re-appreciation of evidence.

It further applied the disciplinary-law principle that where the Enquiry Officer has found in favour of the delinquent employee, the Disciplinary Authority may disagree only tentatively and must communicate the reasons for disagreement, together with the Enquiry Officer’s findings, before taking a final decision and provide an effective opportunity of representation.

A show-cause notice issued after the Disciplinary Authority has already conclusively decided the matter does not satisfy this requirement.

The Tribunal’s conclusion was not perverse because DTC failed to controvert the respondent’s assertion that the Enquiry Officer had exonerated him and did not produce the enquiry proceedings or report before the Tribunal.

Although the Disciplinary Authority was legally entitled to disagree with the Enquiry Officer, it issued the show-cause notice proposing removal without first communicating tentative reasons for disagreement.

The notice therefore reflected a decision already reached and did not constitute a meaningful opportunity to defend.

Since the punishment lacked a lawful disciplinary foundation, the Tribunal was justified in setting it aside.

As to wages, the Tribunal noted that the appellate order maintained continuity of service but DTC produced no material justifying denial of wages for the period between removal and reinstatement, or the differential amount caused by the temporary reduction in pay scale.

The award represented a reasonable and plausible view, and consequently did not meet the threshold for interference under Articles 226 and 227.

The Court also imposed costs of ₹1,00,000 on DTC: ₹25,000 to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, ₹50,000 to the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund, and ₹25,000 to the respondent.

DTC was permitted to recover the costs from the officer responsible for pursuing the litigation.

Pending applications were disposed of.