TRIVED PRAKASH Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN view of averments contained in the instant application, delay in refiling of the writ petition is condoned. This application stands disposed of. The petitioner was working as a conductor in Delhi Transport Corporation. He was dismissed from service after holding a departmental inquiry against him on the charge that he remained absent unauthorizedly for 108 days during the period w. e. f. 01st January, 1992 to 31st December, 1992. The dismissal of the petitioner has been upheld by the Industrial Tribunal then presided by Shri dinesh Dayal vide award dated 6th January, 2007.

(2.) THE argument of the petitioner's counsel is that the petitioner could not attend to his duties during the period of his absence for 108 days in 1992 on account of his illness. Learned counsel has further contended that the respondent (DTC) never informed the petitioner about rejection of his leave applied for. A perusal of the impugned award would reveal that the petitioner has admitted his absence from duty for 108 days during the year 1992. The charge for remaining absent unauthorizedly was duly proved against the petitioner in domestic inquiry held against him. Principles of natural justice were followed while holding the domestic inquiry against the petitioner. At this stage, it will be relevant to refer to para 6 of the impugned award which is extracted below: "in his cross-examination the workman admitted that he participated in the inquiry proceedings. He admitted in his cross- examination that he did not report for duty for 108 days during the period w. e. f. 01. 01. 1992 to 31. 12. 1992. He had not sought previous permission for absence for the above mentioned days. He had submitted his leave applications and medical certificates. He denied that he submitted the leave applications late. He stated that he was not informed about the rejection of his leave applications. He, however, admitted that he used to get his pay slips during the above mentioned period. He has not been paid the salary for the above 108 days. "

(3.) THE case of the petitioner is that he had sent the leave applications to the respondent during the period of his absence and that rejection of his leave was not communicated to him by the respondent. The petitioner in his cross-examination, referred in para 6 of the impugned award extracted above, has admitted that he used to get his pay slips even during the period of his unauthorized absence which show he was not paid salary for the period of his absence. This does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to allege that he was not communicated about rejection of his leave. If the petitioner knew that he was not getting salary for the period of his unauthorized absence then he also knew that he was not getting salary for the period of absence because his leaves were not sanctioned. In DTC Vs. Sardar Singh 2004 (6) Scale 613, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that when an employee absents himself from duty even without sanctioned leave for very long period, it prima- facie shows lack of interest in work and amounts to misconduct liable for dismissal of service. The present case is squarely covered by the judgement of the Hon'ble supreme Court in Sardar Singh's case (supra ).