The Writ Petition of Delhi Transport Corporation regarding unauthorized leave was allowed by the High Court of Delhi.

Title: Delhi Transport Corporation v/s The P.O., Yad Ram.

Court: The High Court of Delhi

Case No.: W.P. (C) 6494/2003

Decided on: 21^st of April, 2023

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gaurang Kanth

Introduction: In this  the Petitioner is challenging the Impugned Award on February 13, 2003, passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-II, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, in O.P. No. 297/1994, titled as ‘Delhi Transport Corporation vs Sh. Yad Ram’.

Fact: The respondent was a conductor at Delhi Transportation Corporation (DTC). He used to remain absent from his duty unauthorized without prior permission between January 1 and December 31, 1992, and had not given any application for leave between the same period.

On the basis of the report submitted by the Junior Pay Bill Clerk, the petitioner issued a charge sheet dated 15^th July, 1993 to the respondent for remaining absent without permission for 140 days. It is stated in the charged sheet that the respondent was on leave without leave application for 59 days and took unauthorized leave without medical certificate for 81 days. It is further stated that such leaves show complete negligence and carelessness towards duty and amount to misconduct under Paragraphs  4 (II) and 19 (H) & (M) of the Standing Order Governing the conduct of the DTC employees. However, an amended charge sheet was issued to the respondent, whereby the charge against him was amended to “absent from duty” instead of “leave without pay”.

The petitioner stated that the respondent replied to the charge sheet and did not dispute the leaves taken by him as mentioned in the charge sheet and thus admitting the charges levelled against him. However, he did not reply to the amended Charge sheet.

Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Manager. The petitioner stated that during enquiry, the respondent admitted the charges levelled against him, and therefore, the Enquiry Officer did not record the statement of any witnesses. Pursuant to enquiry, an enquiry report was submitted to the Disciplinary Authority, Depot Manager, who in turn issued show cause notice to the respondent to show cause as to why he should not be removed from service. Since no reply was filed by the respondent to the show cause notice, the Disciplinary Authority removed the respondent from the service. It further supports the claim of the petitioner that the workmen on dismissal were also paid one month wages via money order. At that time, a dispute between the petitioner and its workmen relating to the implementation of the IV Pay Commission report was pending before the learned Labour Court, so the petitioner filed an Approval Application under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947 (I.D. Act), bearing O.P. No. 297/1994, seeking approval for the removal of the respondent from service. The respondent filed his reply denying the allegations levelled against him in the charge sheet.

After considering, the learned Labour Court vide the impugned Award and dismissed the approval application. The learned Labour Court held that availing of leave without pay does not amount to misconduct. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition.

Question: Can a government employee remain absent without permission?

A government employee who is absent without permission is subject to disciplinary action. The action should be taken immediately and not delayed until the absence exceeds the limit prescribed in the CCS (leave) Rules, 1972. The absent period can be treated as Dies-Non.

Court Analysis and Decision: The High Court has heard the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and also examined the documents placed on record and the judgments relied upon by the parties. The Court found that the Labour Court had rejected the approval application of the petitioner and committed a manifest error. According to the decision passed by the Supreme Court in Sardar Singh case, unauthorized leaves may be treated as misconduct by absence from duty. Thus, even if the leaves taken by the respondent in the present case were marked as leave without pay in the record of the petitioner, it does not mean that the same were authorized leaves. And it was also proved by the petitioner.

Therefore, the Court allowed the Writ Petition and also allowed the approval application filed by the petitioner.

WRITTEN BY:Nireesha Rao

The High Court Of Delhi

Unfold Law – Law Firm in Bangalore, Lawyers in Bangalore