Failure to produce domestic enquiry records vitiates the enquiry and invalidates punishment absent independent proof of misconduct.

The respondent-workman, employed as a conductor with the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC), was charge-sheeted on 31 May 1996 for allegedly collecting higher fares than the denominations of tickets issued to passengers, issuing an incorrect ticket to another passenger, attempting to assault checking staff in connivance with the driver, and using abusive language.

Following a departmental enquiry, DTC imposed the penalty of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect; the workman’s appeal was dismissed.

The workman raised an industrial dispute challenging the punishment. The Industrial Tribunal held that the dispute had been properly espoused by the Union, that the domestic enquiry was vitiated because the enquiry proceedings and report were not produced, and that the alleged misconduct had not otherwise been proved. It consequently declared the punishment illegal and unjustified and directed payment of the arrears withheld pursuant to the punishment order dated 28/29 May 1998.

DTC challenged the Award under Article 226 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the workman’s cause had been properly espoused by the Union

2. Whether the punishment imposed on the workman by orders dated 28/29 May 1998 was illegal and unjustified, including whether the domestic enquiry was valid and whether the alleged misconduct was otherwise proved

3. Whether the Industrial Tribunal’s findings disclosed perversity, jurisdictional error, or patent illegality warranting interference under Article 226

The Court applied the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, under which the Court does not sit as an appellate court over an Industrial Tribunal or reappreciate evidence merely because another view is possible.

In disciplinary proceedings, the employer must place the material enquiry record before the adjudicating authority to establish that the employee received due opportunity and that the charges were duly proved; failure to produce the enquiry proceedings and report may vitiate the domestic enquiry.

Where the domestic enquiry is found defective, the employer must establish the alleged misconduct independently before the Tribunal, particularly where it has not pleaded such a course or led evidence from material witnesses.

A Union’s espousal of a workman’s cause may be established through evidence and a resolution authorising the Union to take up the matter and raise an industrial dispute.

The Tribunal’s finding on espousal was supported by the testimony of the Union’s Vice-President and the Union resolution dated 15 December 1998, which expressly authorised the Union to pursue the workman’s case; DTC produced no contrary material.

As to the punishment, although the Enquiry Officer was examined, DTC failed to produce the domestic-enquiry proceedings or the enquiry report. The Tribunal therefore could not determine whether the workman had been afforded a fair opportunity or whether the charges had been proved, justifying the conclusion that the enquiry was vitiated.

Further, DTC neither pleaded that it would prove the misconduct independently before the Tribunal nor examined the checking officials, reporter, or passengers. Accordingly, the alleged misconduct remained unproved.

These findings were plausible and supported by the record; they were not shown to be perverse, jurisdictionally erroneous, or patently illegal, and therefore did not warrant correction under Article 226.

DTC was directed to implement the Award dated 23 August 2005 and grant the consequential relief, including the arrears of wages withheld pursuant to the punishment order dated 28/29 May 1998, within six weeks from the date of the judgment.