DTC Vs. PYARE LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present petition the Petitioner impugns the orders dated 7th May, 1997 and 11th February, 1999 whereby it was held that a proper enquiry was not conducted by the Petitioner and thus the approval application was dismissed as the Respondent was not guilty of any misconduct regarding unauthorized absence because his absence period was treated as leave without pay.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the Petitioner contends that on the learned Trial Court holding that the inquiry was vitiated, it led evidence of Shri Ravi Chander on whose report the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the Respondent and who proved that the Respondent remained absent from duty unauthorizedly. After having led the evidence, the learned Trial Court erred in coming to the conclusion that since the absence was regularized the Respondent was not guilty of misconduct in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Harihar Gopal 1969 SLR 274, Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Sardar Singh 2004 (6) SCALE 613 and Ex.Constable Maan Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors. 86 (2000) DLT 484 (DB). The contention of the Respondent that the charge- sheet is vague is contrary to the law as it specifically provides for the number of days when the Respondent absented himself in view of the law laid down in Devendra Swami Vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (2002) 9 SCC 644. Even the previous acts of misconduct can be considered and unless the punishment is shockingly disproportionate, the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority should not be interfered with in judicial review. As regards explanation for filing the writ petition belatedly it is stated that the matter was assigned to the counsel for the Petitioner after the opinion of the law officer of the Department, however he failed to file the writ petition and kept the Department in dark stating that the writ petition had been filed. It was only later on revealed that the writ petition was not filed and thus it was assigned to another counsel who filed the writ petition.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Briefly the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the Respondent was appointed as a driver with the Petitioner on 23rd May, 1997. The Respondent absented himself on number of occasions amounting to a total absence of 107 days on similar grounds. Thereafter, from January, 1992 to January, 1993 he absented for 22 days besides availing a total of 214 days leave without pay. The Respondent was issued a charge-sheet on 10th February, 1993 with the following charges: