Misconduct independently proved after a vitiated enquiry justifies restoration of removal from service.

The respondent joined the Delhi Transport Corporation (“DTC”) as a Retainer Driver on 6 February 1981.

DTC issued him a charge-sheet dated 28 June 1994 alleging unauthorised absence for 139 days between September 1993 and May 1994.

Following a departmental enquiry, he was removed from service on 28 November 1994.

The Labour Court, by order dated 30 September 2004, held the domestic enquiry vitiated because the respondent’s explanation had been wrongly treated as an unequivocal admission and because the enquiry record did not demonstrate a meaningful opportunity of defence.

After evidence was led before the Labour Court, it held the removal illegal and directed reinstatement with continuity of service and 10% back wages by Award dated 19 March 2009.

DTC challenged both the order invalidating the enquiry and the consequential Award under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Whether the Labour Court was justified in holding that the domestic enquiry was vitiated for violation of the principles of natural justice.

Whether, notwithstanding the invalid domestic enquiry, the charge of unauthorised absence was established on the evidence subsequently led before the Labour Court.

Whether the punishment of removal from service was shockingly disproportionate to the established misconduct and whether the Labour Court’s order of reinstatement, continuity of service and back wages warranted interference.

Judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 is limited; the writ court does not ordinarily reappreciate evidence or act as an appellate authority, but may interfere where the decision is perverse, legally erroneous, procedurally unfair or suffers from a jurisdictional error.

Under Sur Enamel and Stamping Works Ltd. v. Workmen, 1963 SCC OnLine SC 97, a domestic enquiry must clearly communicate the charges, afford a fair and effective opportunity to meet the evidence, cross-examine witnesses and lead defence evidence, and require the Enquiry Officer to record reasoned findings.

A formal recital that an opportunity was afforded does not establish compliance with natural justice; the opportunity must be real, meaningful and capable of effective use.

Although the ultimate burden of proving misconduct remains on the management, once the employee admits absence and asserts that it was sanctioned or justified, the employee bears the evidentiary burden of substantiating that positive defence.

Under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, interference with punishment is justified only where the penalty is shockingly disproportionate or relevant circumstances have been ignored; reinstatement does not automatically follow merely because the domestic enquiry is defective.

The Court upheld the Labour Court’s finding that the domestic enquiry was invalid because the one-page, pre-typed enquiry report contained only formal recitals of opportunity and did not demonstrate the respondent’s meaningful participation in the defence; his signature and decision to defend himself without a representative did not amount to waiver.

However, the invalidity of the enquiry did not prevent DTC from proving the misconduct independently before the Labour Court.

The respondent admitted his absence and relied on family circumstances and alleged leave applications as justification, but neither he nor the person who purportedly forwarded the applications established that leave had been sanctioned.

The medical material did not cover the relevant period, and the non-production of the original attendance register could not neutralise the admitted fact of absence.

The Court therefore held that the Labour Court had adopted an erroneous approach by treating the absence of some management documents as fatal to DTC’s case.

Given the admitted and repeated absence aggregating to 139 days, along with the respondent’s past disciplinary record, removal from service was not shown to be shockingly disproportionate.

The Court upheld the Labour Court’s order dated 30 September 2004 declaring the domestic enquiry vitiated.

However, it quashed the Award dated 19 March 2009 insofar as it declared the removal illegal and directed reinstatement with continuity of service and 10% back wages.

The charge of unauthorised absence was held established on the evidence, and DTC’s order of removal from service was restored.

Pending applications were disposed of and there was no order as to costs.