W.P.(C) 6699/2003&W.P.(C) 7630/2011 Page 1 of 16

IN THE HIGH COURTOF DELHIAT NEW DELHI

% Judgment Reserved on:30.07.2026

Judgment Delivered on:16.09.2026

Judgment Uploaded on:16.09.2026

# CNR No. DLHC010269902003

+ W.P.(C) 6699/2003

THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S D.T.C. .....Petitioner

versus

NARESH KUMAR & ANR. .....Respondents

# CNR No. DLHC011176882011

+ W.P.(C) 7630/2011

D.T.C. .....Petitioner

versus

NARESH KUMAR .....Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Uday N. Tiwary and Mr. Akshat

Tiwary, Advs.

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Ravikesh K. Sinha, Adv. forR-Naresh

Kumar.

CORAM

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

JUDGMENT

1.By the present petitions, the petitioner corporation seeks to

respectively challenge the correctness of the following orders centered

around the issue of the workman’s removal from service:

W.P.(C) 6699/2003&W.P.(C) 7630/2011 Page 2 of 16

1.1.Order dated 13.11.2002 in O.P. No. 554/92, whereby the

learned Industrial Tribunal rejected the application filed by the

petitioner corporation under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (‘ID Act’) and declined approval for removal of

the respondent workman from service; and

1.2.Award dated 09.11.2009 in ID No. 168/08/95, whereby the

learned Labour Court held that the respondent’s removal from service

was unjustified and directed that he be reinstated albeit without back

wages.

2.It bears relevance to note that the respondent workman expired

during the pendency of the writ petitions in the year 2016 and by

separate order dated 06.02.2017, the legal representative of the

respondent workman was brought on record who is pursuing the

present petition.

3.The material facts germane to the determination of the present

cases are as follows:

3.1.The workman joined the petitioner corporation as a conductor

with effect from 17.03.1985. Allegedly, during an inspection on

08.06.1991, it was found that two passengers were travelling ticketless

on the bus on which the workman was on duty, even though they had

paid the requisite fare to the workman. It was alleged that the

workman refused to sign the challan or hand over the way bill, and he

also misbehaved with the checking staff. On 21.06.1991, a charge

sheet was issued against the workman encapsulating the aforesaid

allegations. The Enquiry Officer found that all allegations were proven

W.P.(C) 6699/2003&W.P.(C) 7630/2011 Page 3 of 16

except that the workman had threatened the checking staff on being

weighed by a number of factors, including the reply sent by the

passenger through post along with the signature of the driver on

challan.

3.2.Pursuant to being found guilty in the domestic enquiry, the

penalty of removal from service was imposed on the workman vide

order dated 24.11.1992.

W.P.(C) 6699/2003

3.3.As the demand of DTC workers for implementation of 4

th

Pay

Commission Report was pending adjudication before the Industrial

Tribunal, an application was filed by DTC for approval of its decision

to remove the workman from service on 24.11.1992 itself. By order

dated 20.11.2000, it was found that the enquiry proceedings were

perverse as the same was based on incomplete record in the absence of

defence statement of the workman. Thereafter, evidence was led by

the parties qua issue of misconduct. By the impugned order dated

13.11.2002, the learned Tribunal dismissed the application for

approval on finding that misconduct was not proved from the

produced evidence. The learned Tribunal was particularly weighed by

the evidence of AW-2 Ami Lal (one of the checking officers) which

reflected that the payment of fare charges to the workman did not take

place in presence of the checking staff, the challan as well as

passenger statement did not bear the signature of the workman or any

endorsement that the workman had refused to sign the said documents

and address of concerned passenger was also not recorded.

W.P.(C) 6699/2003&W.P.(C) 7630/2011 Page 4 of 16

3.4.Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner corporation filed the

present petition. By order dated 14.09.2005, this Court, in the

application preferred by the workman under Section 17B of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 directed DTC to pay wages to the

respondent workman at the higher of the two rates between last drawn

wage and the minimum wage.

W.P.(C) 7630/2011

3.5.An industrial dispute was also raised by the workman against

his removal from service, which was referred to the learned Labour

Court. By the impugned award dated 09.11.2009, the learned Labout

Court found that the enquiry was in violation of the principles of

natural justice as no presenting officer or Labour Welfare Officer was

present and the documents were not supplied to the workman.

Consequently, as DTC had not prayed for permission to lead evidence

on merits, the learned Labour Court examined the record and found

that misconduct was not proved due to absence of oral evidence of the

concerned passenger and due to non-checking of cash. It was found

that reply sent by the passenger Dharam Singh through post had been

erroneously relied upon by the enquiry officer as the same had not

been supplied to the workman and it remained unsupported by direct

oral evidence. Consequently, the workman was directed to be

reinstated with no back wages and litigation expenses of ₹25,000/-

were awarded.

4.Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner corporation filed the

said petition.

W.P.(C) 6699/2003&W.P.(C) 7630/2011 Page 5 of 16

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

workman had duly participated in the enquiry proceedings and the

learned Labour Court as well as the learned Tribunal erroneously

noted that the enquiry proceedings were vitiated due to violation of

principles of natural justice.

6.He submitted that there was sufficient evidence to prove

misconduct in the form of the copy of checking staff report, copy of

tickets, challan and passenger statement which was signed by the

driver. He submitted that strict rules of evidence do not apply to

disciplinary proceedings and the workman’s past conduct warranted

removal from service.

7.He further submitted that checking of cash is not the only

method to prove misappropriation as alleged in the present case, and

the same cannot be said to be fatal to the case of the petitioner.

8.He submitted that the learned Tribunal had erroneously noted in

order dated 20.11.2000 (in the proceedings instituted under Section 33

of the ID Act) that departmental proceeding was vitiated in absence of

closing statement.

9.He submitted that the learned Labour Court also erred in failing

to appreciate that the workman did not insist upon supply of requisite

documents and no prejudice was caused to him so as to nullify the

enquiry proceedings. He submitted that the Labour Welfare Officer

was present on 30.09.1992. He further submitted that even otherwise,

mere purported absence of presenting officer or some procedural

irregularity does not vitiate an enquiry either so long as the delinquent

W.P.(C) 6699/2003&W.P.(C) 7630/2011 Page 6 of 16

is afforded a fair opportunity to defend his case.

10.Per contra, the learned counsel for the workman submitted that

the learned Labour Court as well as the learned Tribunal had rightly

taken note of the infirmities in the case of DTC and decided in favour

of the workman. He submitted that the impugned orders are well-

reasoned and the allegations against the workman were concocted and

the enquiry was manifestly perverse as the relied documents were

never supplied to the workman. He further submitted that order dated

20.11.2000, whereby the Tribunal found the proceedings to be

perverse, was never challenged and the same had attained finality. He

further submitted that the evidence of another conductor of Haryana

Roadways was disbelieved in enquiry without reason and the

passenger’s reply tendered through post is insufficient to prove the

charges, especially since cash was also not checked.

ANALYSIS

11.At the outset, it is relevant to note that the jurisdiction of the

High Court to issue a writ or direction in exercise of power under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India is supervisory in nature and

the Court ought not to act as an appellate Court. This Court ought not

to rove into the exercise of reappreciation of evidence or substitute its

own view for the view taken by the Labour Court unless the same is

shown to be arbitrary or perverse.

12.Equally well settled is the fact that in enquiry proceedings, strict

or sophisticated rules of evidence are not applicable and the charges

W.P.(C) 6699/2003&W.P.(C) 7630/2011 Page 7 of 16

are required to be proved on the touchstone of preponderance of

probabilities, and not beyond reasonable doubt. What is required to be

seen is that there must be some material on record for the Labour

Court to have reasonably arrived at the conclusion. Consequently, so

long as the view taken by the Labour Court is a plausible one, this

Court, in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, ought not re-appraise evidence to disturb the findings only

because another view is possible.

13.Before appraising the merits of the present case, it is also

apposite to take note of the scope of interference that is permissible by

Labour Court/ Tribunal. Proceedings under Section 33(2) of the ID

Actare summary in nature and the purpose of the same is to safeguard

workman against alteration of terms of service and punitive measures

during pendency of an industrial dispute. The Tribunal/ Labour Court

is only required to oversee as to whether the domestic enquiry was

conducted in a fair and proper manner in accordance with principles of

natural justice, and if a prima facie case for dismissal is made out. For

the said purpose, the Tribunal/ Labour Court has to appraise the record

of enquiry, though it can permit the parties to adduce their respective

evidence before it in case the domestic enquiry suffers from any

defect. Such proceedings are however not on par with the jurisdiction

to adjudicate an industrial dispute qua termination under Sections 10

read with Sections 11(3) and 11-A of the ID Act, where the Tribunal/

Labour Court is also empowered to delve into issue of proportionality

of punishment and to appraise the dispute in detail to discern any

W.P.(C) 6699/2003&W.P.(C) 7630/2011 Page 8 of 16

palpable perversity. Reference in this regard can be made to the

judgment in John D’Souza v. Karnataka State Road Transport

Corporation : (2019) 18 SCC 47, where it was held as under:

“23.Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, thus, in the very nature of things

contemplates an enquiry by way of summary proceedings as to

whether a proper domestic enquiry has been held to prove the

misconduct so attributed to the workmen and whether he has been

afforded reasonable opportunity to defend himself in consonance

with the principles of natural justice. As a natural corollary

thereto, the Labour Court or the forum concerned will lift the veil

to find out that there is no hidden motive to punish the workman or

an abortive attempt to punish him for a non-existent misconduct.

24.The Labour Court/Tribunal, nevertheless, while holding

enquiry under Section 33(2)(b), would remember that such like

summary proceedings are not akin and on a par with its

jurisdiction to adjudicate an “industrial dispute” under Sections

10(1)(c) and (d) of the Act, nor the former provision clothe it with

the power to peep into the quantum of punishment for which it

has to revert back to Section 11-A of the Act. Where the Labour

Court/Tribunal, thus, do not find the domestic enquiry defective

and the principles of fair and just play have been adhered to, they

will accord the necessary approval to the action taken by the

employer, albeit without prejudice to the right of the workman to

raise an “industrial dispute” referable for adjudication under

Section 10(1)(c) or (d), as the case may be. It needs pertinent

mention that an order of approval granted under Section 33(2)(b)

has no binding effect in the proceedings under Sections 10(1)(c)

and (d) which shall be decided independently while weighing the

material adduced by the parties before the Labour

Court/Tribunal.

xxx

30. This Court in the above cited decisions has, in no uncertain

terms, divided the scope of enquiry by the Labour Court/Tribunal

while exercising jurisdiction under Section 33(2)(b) in two phases.

Firstly, the Labour Court/Tribunal will consider as to whether or

not a prima facie case for discharge or dismissal is made out on

the basis of the domestic enquiry if such enquiry does not suffer

from any defect, namely, it has not been held in violation of

principles of natural justice and the conclusion arrived at by the

employer is bona fide or that there was no unfair labour practice

W.P.(C) 6699/2003&W.P.(C) 7630/2011 Page 9 of 16

or victimisation of the workman. This entire exercise has to be

undertaken by the Labour Court/Tribunal on examination of the

record of enquiry and nothing more. In the event where no defect

is detected, the approval must follow. The second stage comes

when the Labour Court/Tribunal finds that the domestic enquiry

suffers from one or the other legal ailment. In that case, the

Labour Court/Tribunal shall permit the parties to adduce their

respective evidence and on appraisal thereof the Labour

Court/Tribunal shall conclude its enquiry whether the discharge

or any other punishment including dismissal was justified. That is

the precise ratio decidendi of the decisions of this Court in

(i) Punjab National Bank Ltd. [Punjab National Bank

Ltd. v. Workmen, (1960) 1 SCR 806 : AIR 1960 SC 160] ,

(ii) Mysore Steel Works (P) Ltd. [Mysore Steel Works (P)

Ltd. v. Jitendra Chandra Kar, (1971) 1 LLJ 543 SC] and (iii) Lalla

Ram [Lalla Ram v. DCM Chemical Works Ltd., (1978) 3 SCC 1 :

1978 SCC (L&S) 396] cases.

xxx

33.It, thus, stands out that though the Labour Court or the

Tribunal while exercising their jurisdiction under Section

33(2)(b) are empowered to permit the parties to lead evidence in

respect of the legality and propriety of the domestic enquiry held

into the misconduct of a workman, such evidence would be taken

into consideration by the Labour Court or the Tribunal only if it

is found that the domestic enquiry conducted by the management

on the scale that the standard of proof required therein can be

“preponderance of probability” and not a “proof beyond all

reasonable doubts” suffers from inherent defects or is violative of

principles of natural justice. In other words, the Labour Court or

the Tribunal cannot without first examining the material led in the

domestic enquiry jump to a conclusion and mechanically permit

the parties to lead evidence as if it is an essential procedural part

of the enquiry to be held under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act.”

(emphasis supplied)

14.The dispute in the present cases revolves around termination of

the respondent pursuant to him being found guilty of misconduct as he

did not issue tickets to certain passengers despite receipt of fare.

15.In both the proceedings, the learned Labour Court as well as the

learned Tribunal have respectively found that the enquiry was

W.P.(C) 6699/2003&W.P.(C) 7630/2011 Page 10 of 16

conducted in violation of principles of natural justice. Pertinently,

DTC did not challenge the order dated 20.11.2000 in the proceedings

arising out of application for approval, whereby it was held that the

enquiry report was perverse in absence of defence statement of the

workman, especially since there was no proof of service of notice on

workman to give his final statement. The evidence of defence witness

Harish Chander (conductor of Haryana Roadways) was also not

considered in enquiry proceedings. Apart from the said infirmity, as

noted by the learned Labour Court in the impugned award, though the

enquiry was deferred for non-supply of documents on 23.08.1991,

there was no subsequent noting that such supply was effected and

there is undisputedly no evidence to show that the workman was ever

intimated that he could collect the requisite documents. Though it is

rightly pointed out that the Labour Welfare Officer was present on one

date of hearing and his absence is insufficient to vitiate enquiry, the

non-supply of crucial documents, including a reply sent by concerned

passengers, ex facie results in violation of principles of natural justice.

The said irregularity cannot be brushed aside as a mere procedural

irregularity merely because the workman continued to participate in

the proceedings despite the same. In such circumstances, the enquiry

proceedings were rightly held to be vitiated.

16.Insofar as merits of the case are concerned, pertinently, DTC

did not pray for permission to lead evidence on merits in the

proceedings under Section 10 of the ID Act, however, it examined two

witnesses in the proceedings under Section 33 of the ID Act to prove

W.P.(C) 6699/2003&W.P.(C) 7630/2011 Page 11 of 16

misconduct.

17.Though it is stressed that there was sufficient evidence to prove

the misconduct on preponderance of probabilities, having appraised

the evidence on record, this Court finds that DTC has abysmally failed

to carve out a case against the workman.

18.The allegation against the workman is that two ticketless

passengers were found on inspection with Haryana Roadways Tickets,

who had told the checking staff that they had boarded the bus as their

previous bus had broken down and the conductor/ respondent had not

issued tickets despite being asked. It was DTC’s case that the

workman had admitted his fault but refused to hand over documents or

accept challan, and he had also misbehaved with staff. One of the

major points of consideration is that the challan as well as passenger

statements do not bear the signature of the workman in this case,

despite which, the Enquiry officer was weighed to find that the challan

was issued before release of bus on strength of signature of the driver

Jagdish. It is imperative to note that the said driver had deposed in

enquiry that his signatures had been taken on blank paper, and the said

assertion cannot be brushed aside merely due to absence of a

complaint in this regard. As the challan also bore the statement of the

passengers, the denial by the driver to corroborate the same casts a

shadow on the case of DTC.

19.The reply sent by an independent passenger- Dharam Singh was

discarded by the learned Labour Court as the same was never put to

the workman. Even otherwise, the said witness has only stated that

W.P.(C) 6699/2003&W.P.(C) 7630/2011 Page 12 of 16

certain passengers had boarded the bus and paid the fare, whereafter

the bus was intercepted for inspection when the conductor had gone to

the front to collect tickets for issuance. Though his version may be at

variance with the defence of the workman that passengers of Haryana

Roadways were accommodated due to break down of bus, as also

corroborated by the conductor of that bus- Harish Chand, the same

clearly does not indicate that the workman was refusing to issue

tickets after receipt of fare. The said passenger also did not witness

issuance of challan or any repeated requests by other passengers for

tickets as is alleged. The said aspects have hollowed the very

foundation of allegations.

20.The learned Tribunal was also rightly weighed to find that

misconduct was not made out after appraising the additional evidence

led before it, wherein one checking staff witness inter alia deposed

that statement of concerned passenger Jeet Singh, which appeared on

challan, did not bear signature of checking staff and address of the

said passenger was not recorded. Further, the witness had also deposed

that it was recorded nowhere that the said passenger had refused to

give his address.

21.It is further stressed that the learned Labour Court and the

learned Tribunal were erroneously weighed by absence of cash

verification. In this regard, reference can be made to the decision in

Mahesh Chand v. DTC : W.P.(C) 2399/2007, which is also

pronounced today. After appraising relevant precedents on this issue,

this Court has ultimately concluded that absence of cash verification

W.P.(C) 6699/2003&W.P.(C) 7630/2011 Page 13 of 16

does not ipso facto vitiate an enquiry and finding of guilt can indeed

be sustained without the same as well. The relevant portion of the

judgment is reproduced hereunder:

“21…To determine the effect of absence of cash verification

especially in cases centered on non-issuance of tickets, it is thus

imperative to first appreciate the law laid down in the judgments

which have been relied upon by the parties.

21.1. In UPSRTC v. Suresh Chand Sharma (supra), where

identical allegations were made against respondent of not issuing

tickets to passengers despite collection of fare, the High Court

interfered with finding of guilt only on the ground that neither the

ticketless passengers were examined nor the cash was checked. The

Hon’ble Apex Court set aside the decision of the High Court and

restored the finding of guilt after taking note of the decision in

State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh (supra) and observing that

cogent reasoning is required to interfere with findings recorded by

domestic tribunal. Though no specific observations were made

therein regarding cash verification, the restoration of finding of

guilt clearly reflects that cash verification is not an indispensable

requirement.

21.2. In DTC v. Anup Singh (supra), where it was alleged that

the accused conductor had not issued tickets despite collecting

fare, a Division Bench of this Court found that in the absence of

cash verification and examination of any independent witnesses or

ticketless passengers, it could not be said that there was enough

evidence on record to prove guilt of accused conductor. It was

however also observed that examination of passengers themselves

may not always be possible and other forms of evidence can prove

that fare was collected without tickets being issued, one of which

was by tallying cash.

21.3. In Delhi Transport Corporation v. Shyam Singh (supra)

involving allegations of non-issuance of tickets, a Division Bench

of this Court held that misconduct was inter alia not proved as the

passengers did not support the case of the checking staff in enquiry

and cash had not been checked by the checking staff.

21.4. In DTC v. Ram Avtar Sharma (supra), the allegations were

of non-issuance of tickets. Relying on the decision in Delhi

Transport Corporation v. Shyam Singh (supra), another Division

Bench of this Court upheld the reinstatement of the DTC conductor

W.P.(C) 6699/2003&W.P.(C) 7630/2011 Page 14 of 16

on being weighed by absence of cash verification. It was also found

that enquiry was vitiated by non-supply of documents. It is however

pertinent to note that this case was one where the recorded

statements of passengers were found to be fraught with material

inconsistencies and statements of all ticketless passengers were not

recorded by checking squad. Further, the oral evidence of checking

squad members was found to be inconsistent with recorded

passenger statements, which weighed the Court to hold that charge

of misconduct was not proved. The relevant portion of the judgment

is as under:

“29. In the facts of the present case, the Squad intercepted

the Bus on 24-4-1992 and found ten passengers travelling

without tickets. However, no verification of the cash in the

possession of the Respondent was undertaken at the time

of such checking. The case of the DTC rests principally on

the oral testimony of the Squad members and the un-

punched tickets recovered from the Respondent. As

correctly noticed by the learned Labour Court and

affirmed by the learned Single Judge, the Statements of

Passengers were incomplete and suffered from material

inconsistencies. The statements of Mr Zile Singh and Mr

Subhash do not disclose the precise point of

commencement of travel, the destination, or the fare paid;

nor was any statement recorded from the group of five

passengers alleged to have travelled from Gurgaon to

Badshahpur. Further, the statement of Mr Abhey Singh

lacks credibility, inasmuch as the number of ticketless

passengers referred to therein does not tally with the

names mentioned. In such circumstances, and in the

absence of verification of the cash in the Respondent's

possession, the DTC cannot be said to have discharged its

burden of proving the charge of “misconduct” by reliable

and consistent evidence.”

(emphasis supplied)

21.5. In Nathi Ram v. Delhi Transport Corporation (supra)

where also the allegations were of non-issuance of tickets, relying

on the judgment in UPSRTC v. Suresh Chand Sharma (supra), a

Coordinate Bench of this Court found that absence of cash

verification would not dislodge the veracity of testimony of other

witnesses.

W.P.(C) 6699/2003&W.P.(C) 7630/2011 Page 15 of 16

21.6. None of the aforesaid judgments lay down a rigid

principle necessitating cash verification. Thus, it is clear that

though absence of cash verification may assume significance in

certain circumstances if the other evidence on record is

substantially deficient, however, the same would not ipso facto

lead to automatic conclusion of vitiation of enquiry. Misconduct

may still be proved on strength of other evidence.”

(emphasis supplied)

22.Though cash verification is not the sole method of establishing

misconduct, in the circumstances of the present case where enquiry is

vitiated due to non-supply of documents and evidence is plagued with

substantial infirmities, the same assumes significance and it cannot be

held that charge of misconduct is proved against the workman.

23.In view of the aforesaid discussion, as the findings of the

learned Labour Court and the learned Tribunal are well-reasoned and

plausible, this Court finds no reason to exercise its extraordinary writ

jurisdiction to interfere with the impugned award or the impugned

order to the extent of vitiation of enquiry and the termination of the

respondent being unjustified.

23.1.However, it is pertinent to note that the respondent workman

had expired way back in the year 2016 itself. Further, the termination

dates back to the year 1992. Pursuant to the order dated 14.09.2005,

the respondent workman was being paid subsistence allowance in

accordance with Section 17B of the Industrial Tribunal Act, 1947.

Considering the peculiar facts of this case and that the workman

served with DTC for only around 6-7 years, this Court is of the

opinion that a lump-sum compensation of ₹3,00,000/- will meet the

W.P.(C) 6699/2003&W.P.(C) 7630/2011 Page 16 of 16

ends of justice.

23.2.Let the said amount be paid to the legal heir(s) of the workman

within a period of four weeks.

24.The impugned order is upheld to the aforesaid extent and the

impugned award is modified.

25.A copy of this judgment be placed in both the matters.

AMIT MAHAJAN, J

SEPTEMBER 16, 2026

‘KDK’