Delhi HC dismisses DTC's 32-year challenge over ₹67 fare, slaps ₹1 lakh costs

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition by the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) challenging an Industrial Tribunal award that had granted relief to a conductor involved in a ₹67 fare dispute, and imposed costs of ₹1 lakh for pursuing frivolous litigation over 32 years.

Justice Amit Mahajan, in a judgment dated September 2, 2026, upheld the Tribunal's finding that the punishment imposed on conductor Rajender Prashad was without lawful basis and that he was entitled to full back wages for the period he was kept out of service.

The ₹67 Incident and Ensuing Litigation

The case dates back to November 15, 1994, when conductor Rajender Prashad was on duty on a DTC bus. A checking squad alleged that he had collected ₹67 from a group of three and a half passengers but failed to issue tickets to three of them. Following a charge sheet, an enquiry was conducted, and the enquiry officer exonerated the conductor, noting that the charges were maliciously leveled.

However, the disciplinary authority disagreed and issued a show-cause notice for removal from service. After the conductor's reply was found unsatisfactory, he was removed from service on August 14, 1996. On appeal, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of DTC modified the punishment: the conductor was reinstated without back wages and reduced to the initial stage of the pay scale for two years.

Aggrieved by this modified punishment, the workman raised an industrial dispute. The Industrial Tribunal, by an award dated March 24, 2004, held the punishment illegal and directed DTC to pay the workman wages on his regular pay scale for the two-year reduction period and full wages for the intervening period from August 14, 1996, to January 13, 1998.

DTC challenged this award before the Delhi High Court, which had stayed its operation in 2005.

Arguments and the Court's Analysis

DTC argued that the Tribunal could interfere with the punishment only if it was highly disproportionate to the misconduct, a threshold not met in this case. The workman countered that no ground existed for interference under Article 226.

The High Court observed that the scope of interference with an Industrial Tribunal's award is limited to cases of patent illegality or perversity. The court noted that the workman had consistently pleaded that the enquiry officer exonerated him, and DTC failed to place the enquiry report before the Tribunal or controvert this assertion.

The court emphasized that while a disciplinary authority can disagree with the enquiry officer's findings, such disagreement must be tentative and communicated to the delinquent along with reasons, affording him an opportunity to respond. In this case, the show-cause notice directly proposed removal without any tentative disagreement note, proceeding on a pre-determined decision.

Key Observations

"The learned Tribunal has found, on appreciation of the pleadings and evidence, that the respondent workman had consistently pleaded that the enquiry officer had exonerated him of the charges... Significantly, the petitioner neither controverted this assertion nor placed the enquiry proceedings or the enquiry report before the Tribunal." (Para 15)

"In the present case, no such disagreement note containing tentative reasons for disagreement with the findings of the enquiry officer was issued to the respondent workman . Instead, the Disciplinary Authority straightaway issued the show-cause notice ... proposing the penalty of removal from service ." (Para 17)

"It is also necessary to note that the petitioner Department has been litigating the issue of payment of 17 months' back wages to the respondent for the last 32 years. The continued litigation over such a limited claim, for an inordinately long period, amounts to an abuse of the process of law and has resulted in avoidable expenditure of public money ." (Para 21)

Costs Imposed

The court found that the Tribunal's view was reasonable and plausible, calling for no interference. It further noted that DTC's prolonged litigation over a limited claim for 32 years constituted an abuse of process and wasteful expenditure of public funds.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition and imposed costs of ₹1 lakh on DTC, to be distributed as follows: ₹25,000 to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, ₹50,000 to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund, and ₹25,000 to the respondent workman. DTC was also given liberty to recover the costs from the officer responsible for pursuing the insignificant dispute.