1. Service dispute — Dismissal for possession of forged ticket blocks by a bus conductor — Challenge to domestic enquiry and termination. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6124
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Shail Jain, J
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION – Appellant
Versus
HARISH CHANDRA – Respondent
W.P.(C)-3183/2011
Important Points
Procedural irregularities in domestic enquiries don't vitiate proceedings without proven prejudice. In industrial adjudication, strict rules of evidence are inapplicable; misconduct proved by preponderance of probabilities, especially regarding financial integrity in fiduciary roles, justifies termination due to loss of confidence, regardless of criminal acquittal.
Subject
Labour and Employment Law - Industrial Disputes
Act Referred
Constitution of India: Art.226, Art.227
IPC: S.420, S.468, S.471
DTC (Conduct) Rules: R.19(b), R.19(f), R.19(h), R.19(m)
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: S.17-B
Indian Evidence Act, 1872
IPC: S.420, S.468, S.471
DTC (Conduct) Rules: R.19(b), R.19(f), R.19(h), R.19(m)
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: S.17-B
Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 17-B - Validity of domestic enquiry - Procedural irregularities - Absence of Labour Welfare Officer and Presenting Officer - A domestic enquiry cannot be invalidated on mere procedural irregularities unless it is shown that such deviation resulted in denial of a fair opportunity or caused real prejudice to the delinquent employee (Paras 23, 25). Internal administrative instructions are rules of prudence and not mandatory statutory rules; thus, non-compliance does not ipso facto vitiate the enquiry (Para 25, 26).
(B) Industrial Adjudication - Evidence and Standard of Proof - Strict rules of evidence as embodied under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, are not applicable to proceedings before the Labour Court; proceedings are guided by the principles of natural justice and the standard of proof is that of preponderance of probabilities (Paras 45, 49). Non-production of original documents, when the reason (such as police custody) is provided and not discredited, does not justify drawing an adverse inference against the management (Para 44, 46).
(C) Testimony of Witness - Reliability of solitary witness - There is no rule of evidence mandating that the testimony of a solitary witness cannot be relied upon, provided it is found to be credible, consistent, and acceptable (Paras 51, 52).
(D) Punishment and Reinstatement - Loss of confidence - In cases involving financial irregularities or breach of trust in fiduciary roles, such as handling ticketing revenue, proved misconduct justifies the doctrine of loss of confidence, making reinstatement unwarranted (Paras 64, 65, 66). (E) Criminal vs. Disciplinary Proceedings - Acquittal in criminal proceedings does not ipso facto absolve a workman of misconduct in industrial adjudication, as the two operate in distinct fields with different objectives and standards of proof (Para 67).
Facts of the case:
A conductor was removed from service following a departmental enquiry that found him in possession of counterfeit ticket blocks. The Labour Court first held the domestic enquiry to be vitiated due to the absence of a Labour Welfare Officer and a Presenting Officer. Subsequently, after the management led evidence, the Labour Court concluded that the misconduct was not proved because original documents were not produced and the case rested on the testimony of a single witness, thereby ordering reinstatement without back wages.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the Labour Court erred in treating procedural guidelines as mandatory, as the workman had participated in the enquiry and cross-examined witnesses, causing no prejudice. Furthermore, the Labour Court applied an incorrect standard of proof by insisting on strict rules of evidence and corroboration, thereby ignoring credible testimony and the preponderance of probabilities.
Issues: Whether the Labour Court was justified in holding the domestic enquiry vitiated on procedural grounds and whether it was correct in concluding that the management failed to prove misconduct despite leading evidence before the court.
Ratio Decidendi: Procedural deviations in departmental enquiries do not vitiate proceedings unless real prejudice is demonstrated. Industrial tribunals must decide cases based on the preponderance of probabilities rather than technical rules of admissibility. Misconduct involving financial integrity in a revenue-handling position constitutes a fundamental breach of trust, justifying the employer's loss of confidence and the denial of reinstatement.
Result: Writ petition allowed; Impugned Award set aside.
(B) Industrial Adjudication - Evidence and Standard of Proof - Strict rules of evidence as embodied under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, are not applicable to proceedings before the Labour Court; proceedings are guided by the principles of natural justice and the standard of proof is that of preponderance of probabilities (Paras 45, 49). Non-production of original documents, when the reason (such as police custody) is provided and not discredited, does not justify drawing an adverse inference against the management (Para 44, 46).
(C) Testimony of Witness - Reliability of solitary witness - There is no rule of evidence mandating that the testimony of a solitary witness cannot be relied upon, provided it is found to be credible, consistent, and acceptable (Paras 51, 52).
(D) Punishment and Reinstatement - Loss of confidence - In cases involving financial irregularities or breach of trust in fiduciary roles, such as handling ticketing revenue, proved misconduct justifies the doctrine of loss of confidence, making reinstatement unwarranted (Paras 64, 65, 66). (E) Criminal vs. Disciplinary Proceedings - Acquittal in criminal proceedings does not ipso facto absolve a workman of misconduct in industrial adjudication, as the two operate in distinct fields with different objectives and standards of proof (Para 67).
Facts of the case:
A conductor was removed from service following a departmental enquiry that found him in possession of counterfeit ticket blocks. The Labour Court first held the domestic enquiry to be vitiated due to the absence of a Labour Welfare Officer and a Presenting Officer. Subsequently, after the management led evidence, the Labour Court concluded that the misconduct was not proved because original documents were not produced and the case rested on the testimony of a single witness, thereby ordering reinstatement without back wages.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the Labour Court erred in treating procedural guidelines as mandatory, as the workman had participated in the enquiry and cross-examined witnesses, causing no prejudice. Furthermore, the Labour Court applied an incorrect standard of proof by insisting on strict rules of evidence and corroboration, thereby ignoring credible testimony and the preponderance of probabilities.
Issues: Whether the Labour Court was justified in holding the domestic enquiry vitiated on procedural grounds and whether it was correct in concluding that the management failed to prove misconduct despite leading evidence before the court.
Ratio Decidendi: Procedural deviations in departmental enquiries do not vitiate proceedings unless real prejudice is demonstrated. Industrial tribunals must decide cases based on the preponderance of probabilities rather than technical rules of admissibility. Misconduct involving financial integrity in a revenue-handling position constitutes a fundamental breach of trust, justifying the employer's loss of confidence and the denial of reinstatement.
Result: Writ petition allowed; Impugned Award set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
- labour law
-
constitutional law
-
writ jurisdiction
- scope of judicial review (Para 17)
-
writ jurisdiction
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Uday N. Tiwari
For the Respondents: M.P. Sinha, Satyam Mishra, VhavyaRazshree
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Uday N. Tiwari
For the Respondents: M.P. Sinha, Satyam Mishra, VhavyaRazshree
Table of Contents
2. Management argued procedural defects do not vitiate enquiry; workman contended non-compliance with mandatory circulars and insufficient evidence to prove misconduct. (Para 14 , 15 )
3. A domestic enquiry is not vitiated by mere procedural irregularities absent prejudice; strict evidence rules do not apply in labour court proceedings. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 29 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 51 , 52 )
4. Non-compliance with internal circulars or non-appointment of a Presenting Officer does not vitiate an enquiry unless prejudice is shown. In industrial adjudication, the standard of proof is preponderance of probabilities, and relevant material cannot be discarded solely for non-production of originals. (Para 25 , 26 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 )
5. Writ petition allowed; impugned order and award set aside; reinstatement denied; amounts paid under Section 17B of ID Act not recoverable. (Para 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 )
6. Does the non-appointment of a Presenting Officer automatically vitiate a domestic enquiry?
No. The non-appointment of a Presenting Officer does not, by itself, vitiate a departmental enquiry. The test is whether the delinquent suffered demonstrable prejudice or was denied a fair opportunity. The principles of natural justice are not violated unless prejudice is shown. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 )
7. Is the presence of a Labour Welfare Officer mandatory in a domestic enquiry under an administrative circular?
No. An internal administrative instruction is directory, not mandatory. Its non-compliance does not ipso facto vitiate the enquiry unless the workman demonstrates that it caused prejudice or resulted in a denial of a fair opportunity. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 )
8. Can a domestic enquiry be invalidated solely because the management did not produce original documents before the Labour Court?
No. Strict rules of evidence do not apply in labour court proceedings. If the non-production is explained (e.g., documents are in police custody), the court must evaluate the available evidence, including oral testimony and copies, based on preponderance of probabilities. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 49 )
9. Is the testimony of a single witness sufficient to prove misconduct in an industrial dispute?
Yes. There is no rule that a solitary witness cannot be relied upon. The test is the intrinsic credibility and consistency of the testimony. If it remains unshaken in cross-examination and is not rebutted, it can form the basis of a finding of misconduct. (Para 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 )
10. Does a criminal acquittal automatically entitle a workman to reinstatement in a disciplinary proceeding?
No. Criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings operate in distinct fields with different standards of proof. An acquittal in a criminal trial, particularly on the ground of insufficiency of evidence, does not ipso facto absolve the workman of misconduct in industrial adjudication. (Para 67 )
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 10.02.2026 Date of decision: 13.04.2026 Uploaded on: 13.04.2026 + W.P.(C) 3183/2011 DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Uday N. Tiwari, Adv.
versus HARISH CHANDRA .....Respondent Through: Mr. M.P. Sinha, Mr. Satyam Mishra and Ms. VhavyaRazshree, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN
JUDGMENT
SHAIL JAIN, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, Delhi Transport Corporation, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 28.10.2009 (hereinafter referred to as the Impugned Order) and the Award dated 02.12.2010 (hereinafter referred to as the Impugned Award) passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, in DID No. 01/2008.
BRIEF FACTS:
2. The brief factual matrix, as borne out from the record, is that the respondent/workman, Harish Chandra (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent), was employed as a Conductor with the petitioner, Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC), since the year 1985 and was posted at Shriniwaspuri Depot, bearing Badge No. 22659.
3. On 16.10.2003, while the Respondent was performing his duties as a Conductor in Bus No. 6467 on Route No. 518/9, the bus was checked by the checking staff of the petitioner Corporation at the Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Station Bus Stand at about 13:05 hours. During the inspection of the waybill and ticket blocks, it was allegedly found that the Respondent was in possession of certain ticket blocks of denominations of ₹5 and ₹10, bearing specific serial numbers, which were alleged to be counterfeit/duplicate in nature.
4. As per the checking report prepared by the checking staff, it was alleged that the Respondent possessed:
(i) a ticket block of denomination ₹5 bearing numbers 448-82164 to 82199, which were alleged to be counterfeit, whereas genuine tickets of the same block series 448-82161 to 82199 were also available; and (ii) ticket blocks of denomination ₹10 bearing numbers 483-11755 to 11799 and 483-11770 to 11799, which were stated to be bogus, whereas genuine tickets of the same series11760 to 11799 were also found.
5. Pursuant to the said incident, the Respondent was taken to the headquarters, and FIR No. 104/2003 was registered at Police Station Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Station on same day under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC. The Respondent remained in judicial custody from 16.10.2003 to
30.10.2003.
6. The respondent/workman was placed under suspension vide order dated 17.10.2003, pending initiation and conclusion of disciplinary proceedings arising out of the alleged incident.
7. Thereafter, a charge sheet dated 24.02.2005 was issued by the petitioner/management alleging misconduct under Rule 19(b), (f), (h) and (m) of the DTC (Conduct) Rules, primarily on the ground of possession of forged/bogus ticket blocks causing financial loss to the Corporation. The Respondent submitted his reply to the charge sheet denying the allegations. Not being satisfied with the explanation furnished, the management initiated departmental disciplinary proceedings against the Respondent.
8. The enquiry proceedings were conducted initially by Ms. Sunita Chauhan and subsequently by Sh. Sushil Jacob on various dates between 08.04.2005 and 29.03.2006. During the course of the enquiry, the management examined witnesses, including members of the checking staff. The Respondent participated in the enquiry proceedings and cross-examined the witnesses produced by the management. Upon completion of the enquiry proceedings, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 25.04.2006, holding that the charges against the Respondent stood proved.
9. Based on the findings recorded in the enquiry report, the management issued a show cause notice dated 13.10.2006 proposing the penalty of removal from service. The Respondent submitted his reply to the said notice; however, the disciplinary authority was not satisfied with the explanation offered. Cons
