ROSHAN LAL Vs. DELHI JAL BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 18.05.2018, passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing a petition filed by him impugning the Award dated 11.10.2017, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, answering the Reference against him.

(2.) By the impugned order, the petition filed by the appellant/petitioner has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge by observing that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters is very narrow. Relying on several decisions of the Supreme Court, the learned Single Judge has held that it is a settled position of law that the High Court/Tribunal cannot interfere with the discretion exercised by the Disciplinary Authority/Appellate Authority unless and until it is apparent that the said discretion suffers from the vice of illegality or material/procedural irregularity, sufficient to shock the conscience of the Court.

(3.) We may note that in the instant case, the appellant/petitioner was initially appointed by the respondent/Delhi Jal Board as a Beldar on the Muster Roll w.e.f. 19.10.1989. By an order dated 10.09.1998, his services were regularized w.e.f. 01.04.1995. It is an undisputed position that the appellant/petitioner remained absent from duty for a period of 768 days, from 23.11.2002 to 30.12.2004, without taking prior permission or sending any intimation to the respondent/Management. During this period, several letters were issued by the respondent/Management to the appellant/petitioner calling upon him to resume his duties, but he failed to do so. The appellant/petitioner did not even bother to give a reply or submit a representation to the respondent/Delhi Jal Board. Resultantly, a departmental inquiry was conducted against the appellant/petitioner. The appellant/petitioner failed to appear in the departmental proceedings. The Inquiry Report was submitted to the Disciplinary Authority of the respondent/Delhi Jal Board stating inter-alia that the charge of absence without leave was proved against him. A notice to show cause was issued to the appellant/petitioner, who replied thereto on 05.11.2004. The said reply was considered by the Disciplinary Authority and an order was issued removing him from service. The service of the appellant/petitioner was finally terminated on 02.08.2005.