DELHI HIGH COURT HOLDS DISMISSAL OF DTC
CONDUCTOR FOR UNAUTHORISED ABSENCE SHOCKINGLY DISPROPORTIONATE; AWARDS ₹4 LAKH
COMPENSATION
Court rules that although misconduct was
established, removal from service was excessively harsh considering the
employee's nearly decade-long service and intermittent periods of absence.
Justice Amit Mahajan directs Delhi
Transport Corporation to pay compensation within three weeks; declines
reinstatement due to passage of more than three decades since dismissal.
NEW DELHI | 1 NOVEMBER 2026
In a significant judgment concerning disciplinary
action, proportionality of punishment and the rights of employees, the Delhi
High Court has held that removal from service of a Delhi Transport Corporation
(DTC) conductor for unauthorised absence was shockingly disproportionate,
despite the misconduct having been established.
The Court awarded ₹4 lakh as one-time compensation
to the employee, whose services had been terminated in December 1991, and
directed DTC to make the payment within three weeks.
The judgment was delivered on 13 July 2026 by
Justice Amit Mahajan in Narender Singh v. Delhi Transport Corporation,
W.P.(C) Nos. 8886/2008 and 8737/2005.
Advocate Anuj Aggarwal, assisted by a team
of advocates, represented the petitioner, Narender Singh, before the Delhi High
Court.
The ruling highlights an important principle of
service jurisprudence: even where an employee's misconduct is proved, the
punishment imposed must remain proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct
and the surrounding circumstances.
BACKGROUND: DTC CONDUCTOR REMOVED FROM
SERVICE IN 1991
Narender Singh was appointed as a conductor with the
Delhi Transport Corporation on 19 November 1982 and was subsequently posted at
the Vasant Vihar Depot.
During 1989, he remained absent from duty for a total
of 119 days in different spells. Consequently, DTC issued a chargesheet dated
27 June 1990, alleging unauthorised absence and negligence towards official
duties.
Following a departmental enquiry, the charges were
held to be proved, and Singh was removed from service on 13 December 1991.
The matter subsequently underwent prolonged litigation
before various judicial forums.
On 25 February 2005, the Industrial Tribunal-II,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, approved the management's action under Section
33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Thereafter, on 25 July 2007, Labour Court No. VII,
Delhi, dismissed the industrial dispute raised by the employee and upheld the
punishment of removal from service.
Aggrieved by these decisions, Singh approached the
Delhi High Court through two writ petitions challenging the Industrial
Tribunal's order and the Labour Court's award.
EMPLOYEE CLAIMED ABSENCE WAS DUE TO
SERIOUS ILLNESS
Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Anuj Aggarwal
argued that the employee's absence was attributable to acute knee pain and
severe illness rather than any deliberate intention to neglect his duties.
It was submitted that the employee had furnished leave
applications supported by medical certificates and that mere absence from duty,
without establishing wilfulness, could not automatically constitute misconduct.
The petitioner further challenged the fairness of the
departmental enquiry and contended that the extreme punishment of removal from
service was disproportionate, particularly considering his approximately nine
years of service.
DTC, on the other hand, defended the disciplinary
proceedings, maintaining that the employee was a habitual absentee.
The Corporation pointed out that Singh had also taken
106 days of leave without pay in 1988, resulting in an earlier punishment of
stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect.
HIGH COURT UPHOLDS FINDING OF MISCONDUCT
After examining the record, the High Court declined to
interfere with the finding that the employee had remained unauthorisedly
absent.
Justice Mahajan observed that merely submitting a
leave application did not amount to obtaining sanctioned leave. An employee
could not presume that leave had been approved merely because an application
had been submitted.
The Court also noted that the available evidence did
not adequately justify the entire period of absence.
Although medical grounds had been cited for 84 days,
the remaining periods of absence were not satisfactorily explained.
The High Court further rejected the challenge to the
departmental enquiry, observing that the petitioner had participated in the
proceedings and had failed to demonstrate material prejudice arising from the
alleged procedural irregularities.
Accordingly, the Court found no sufficient
justification to disturb the conclusions concerning the employee's misconduct.
REMOVAL FROM SERVICE WAS SHOCKINGLY
DISPROPORTIONATE: HIGH COURT
The decisive issue before the High Court was whether
the punishment of removal from service was justified in the circumstances.
While accepting that the misconduct stood proved,
Justice Mahajan held that the punishment was excessively harsh.
The Court attached significance to two circumstances:
the employee's absence had occurred in different spells rather than
continuously, and he had rendered approximately a decade of service before his
removal.
In paragraph 17 of the judgment, the High Court
observed:
"Though charge of misconduct is
proved, this Court finds the penalty of removal from service to be harsh in the
facts of the present case."
The Court further held:
"This Court is of the opinion that
the imposed penalty is shockingly disproportionate."
The observations reinforce the distinction between
establishing misconduct and determining an appropriate disciplinary punishment.
The judgment illustrates that proof of misconduct does
not necessarily justify the most severe penalty and that punishment must be
evaluated in light of the nature of the misconduct, the employee's service
history and other relevant circumstances.
₹4 LAKH COMPENSATION INSTEAD OF
REINSTATEMENT
Although the High Court found the punishment of
removal from service shockingly disproportionate, it declined to direct
reinstatement because more than three decades had elapsed since the employee's
termination in 1991.
Instead, the Court considered monetary compensation to
be an appropriate remedy in the circumstances.
Justice Mahajan directed:
"Interests of justice would be met if
a one-time lump sum compensation of ₹4,00,000/- is awarded to the petitioner
instead."
The Court directed Delhi Transport Corporation to pay
the amount within three weeks and disposed of both writ petitions accordingly.
The decision brought the High Court proceedings to a
conclusion after a prolonged legal dispute arising from disciplinary action
taken more than 34 years before the judgment.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE JUDGMENT
The ruling is significant for employees facing severe
disciplinary punishment for unauthorised absence and for public employers
exercising disciplinary powers.
It demonstrates that judicial scrutiny of punishment
remains relevant even where the findings of misconduct are sustained.
The judgment also illustrates that proportionality
is an independent consideration in disciplinary matters. A court may find
that misconduct was established yet conclude that the resulting punishment is
excessive.
At the same time, the decision recognises the
practical difficulties associated with reinstatement after an exceptionally
prolonged interval and demonstrates how monetary compensation may provide an
alternative form of relief.
The ruling is particularly relevant to disputes
involving public sector employees, transport undertakings and other
disciplinary proceedings in which removal or dismissal is challenged as an
excessive punishment.
ADVOCATES APPEARING IN THE MATTER
Advocate Anuj Aggarwal
appeared for the petitioner, assisted by Advocates Bhumica Kundra, Kritika
Matta, Pradeep Kumar, Tanya Rose, Shubham Bahl, Nikhil Pawar, Lovekesh Chauhan,
Manas Verma, Shakib Malik and Anjali Bansal.
Advocate Manisha Tyagi appeared on behalf of Delhi
Transport Corporation.
CASE DETAILS
Case: Narender Singh
v. Delhi Transport Corporation
Court: High Court of
Delhi, New Delhi
Case Numbers:
W.P.(C) 8886/2008 and W.P.(C) 8737/2005
Judge: Hon'ble Mr
Justice Amit Mahajan
Date of Judgment:
13 July 2026
Issue: Proportionality
of removal from service for unauthorised absence
Outcome: Finding of
misconduct sustained; punishment of removal held shockingly disproportionate;
one-time compensation of ₹4 lakh awarded, payable within three weeks.
LEGAL REPRESENTATION AND CONTACT DETAILS
ANUJ AGGARWAL & COMPANY
Advocates
Office Address:
K-17, 2nd Floor,
Jangpura Extension,
New Delhi – 110014
Chamber Address:
483, Block-II, Lawyers Chambers,
Delhi High Court,
New Delhi – 110003
Mobile: +91 9891403206
Email: anujaggarwal1984@gmail.com
anujaggarwalcompany@gmail.com
Website: https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php
No comments:
Post a Comment