MAHENDER SINGH Vs. D T C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 04.08.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant herein which was filed against the order of Industrial Tribunal dated 4.11.2000 granting approval to the Delhi Transport Corporation to the decision taken for removal of the appellant from service.

(2.) Briefly the facts are that a charge-sheet was issued to the appellant who was employed as a Driver with the respondent. In the said charge-sheet it was alleged that appellant remained absent from duty during the period from 01.01.1992 to 15.08.1992. It was also alleged in the charge-sheet that the appellant was irregular in performing his duty and was not interested in the task assigned to him by the Corporation. Against the aforesaid charge-sheet a reply was filed by the appellant wherein he had alleged that he was unwell during the months of September and October, 1991. After his recovery he was sent to the D.T.C Medical Board. On issuance of medical fitness certificate by the said Board on 29.10.1991, he reported for duty. He also submitted that his wife is a heart patient and also frequently suffers from the attacks. An enquiry was conducted on the basis of the aforesaid allegations made in the chage-sheet and reply thereto filed by the appellant and on completion of the enquiry a decision was taken by the Delhi Transport Corporation to terminate the service of the appellant. Once the said decision was taken for removal of the appellant from service an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act was filed seeking approval of the Tribunal of its decision. The aforesaid application was considered by the Tribunal and preliminary issue was framed on 12.01.1995 to the following effect:-

(3.) At this stage, the respondent examined Shri Charan Singh, Pay Bill Clerk as AW1. He deposed before the Tribunal about the preparation of statement of attendance of appellant from January 1992 to 15.08.1992. He had also deposed that during the period from 01.01.1992 to 15.08.1992 the appellant remained absent from duty for 8 days and leave application for other 80 days were rejected as the same was received late. He further deposed that the report was prepared on the basis of relevant record. The record and the report were exhibited as Ex AW/1 and Ex. AW1/2. He denied that the leave for 80 days was sanctioned. He also denied the fact that the appellant had submitted the leave applications within time. The appellant also examined himself as RW1. After completion of the evidence adduced by the parties the learned Industrial Tribunal heard the matter and held that the allegation made against the appellant stands proved. It was also held that the appellant remained absent from duty unauthorizedly as is alleged in the charge-sheet. It was further held that act of appellant in remaining absent from duty unauthorizedly for 88 days during the total period of service of 7" months itself clearly established that he was habitual in committing such misconduct. Accordingly, the approval was granted to terminate the services of the petitioner. Aggrieved with the same, the writ petition (C) No.5512/2001 was filed by the appellant which was considered by the learned Single Judge. The said writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 4.8.2006. Aggrieved with the said order the appeal is filed on which we have heard the learned counsel for the parties.