The court ruled on the improper procedure followed in disciplinary proceedings, emphasizing that lack of evidence rendered the misconduct allegations unproven, leading to compensation for the employee.

JUDGMENT

Satish Chandra Sharma, C.J. The present appeal is arising out of common judgment passed in W.P.(C.) No. 6748/2003 in Shri Ashok Kumar Vs. D.T.C. & Ors. and in W.P.(C.) No. 8186/2004 in Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Ashok Kumar.

2. The facts of the case reveal that the respondent Ashok Kumar was an employee serving in Delhi Transport Corporation (herein after referred as DTC). He joined the services of the Corporation as Assistant Fitter (Daily wages) in the year 1982, and was brought on monthly rates in the year 1983. While he was serving on the post of Fitter, on 11.08.1991, he allegedly entered into the Office of Forman under the influence of the Liquor and assaulted one Sh. Ranjit Singh, Asst. Forman and abused him. He was placed under suspension on 12.08.1991, and, thereafter, a chargesheet was issued on 30.08.1991. As per the imputation of misconduct, he allegedly forcibly got his attendance marked by Sh. L. N. Benket, Forman at 22.15 Hrs., and assaulted one Assistant Forman Sh. Ranjit Kumar, who was present there.

3. A reply was filed by the employee in question, and, thereafter, not being satisfied by the reply, Enquiry Officer was appointed by the Competent Disciplinary Authority. The Enquiry Officer concluded the enquiry and submitted a detailed report on 20.02.1992, and Disciplinary Authority based upon the enquiry report on 12.03.1992, issued a show cause notice, and, thereafter finally an order of removal was passed on 24.04.1992.

4. He was also remitted one month's salary by Money Order in order to ensure compliance of Section 33(2)(b) of the I. D. Act. The DTC also filed an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act before the Industrial Tribunal for approval of the action taken by the Corporation.

5. The Labour Court framed the issues in the matter on 11.09.1994, and by an order dated 16.08.2002 decided the validity of the enquiry against the employer on the ground that the Enquiry Officer was not produced by the DTC. The Presiding Officer, thereafter, passed an order on 12.05.2002, rejecting the application preferred by the employer preferred under Section 33(2)(b) of the I. D. Act.

6. The appellant, thereafter, preferred a writ petition being W.P.(C.) No. 8186/2004, being aggrieved by the order dated 02.05.2003. An application was preferred under Section 17B of the I.D. Act by the respondent in the writ petition. The application was allowed and the appellant was directed to comply with the provisions of Section 17B of the I. D. Act, and a total amount of Rs.13,93,408/- has been paid to the workman as wages under Section 17B of the I.D. Act for the period till the matter has been decided by the Learned Single Judge. It is noteworthy to mention that the workman was removed from service on 12.03.1992, and an order was passed in his favour by Labour Court on 02.05.2003. The Learned Single Judge has granted a lumpsum compensation for the period from 1992 to 2003 to the tune of Rs.10 Lacs.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the DTC has vehemently argued before this Court that in the present case, the employee in question has assaulted a senior officer, and there was sufficient evidence on record to prove the misconduct, and hence the order passed by the Labour Court and the order passed by the Learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside.

8. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. The undisputed facts of the case reveal that on account of alleged misconduct, which took place on 11.08.1991, a chargesheet was issued to the Workman, and finally Disciplinary Authority pass