Delhi High Court
Delhi Transport Corporation vs Ram Avtar Shrama on 23 May, 2026
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment reserved on: 22.01.2026
% Judgment delivered on: 23.05.2026
+ LPA 972/2024 & CM APPL. 57378/2024
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION .....Appellant
Versus
RAM AVTAR SHARMA .....Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case
For the Appellant : Mr. Rahul Kumar Verma, Mr. Raj
Shekhar Awasthi and Ms. Bhumi
Panjwani, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
JUDGMENT
TEJAS KARIA, J
1. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the order
dated 14.05.2024 (“Impugned Order”) passed in W.P.(C) No. 6785/2011
(“Writ Petition”) titled as ‘Delhi Transport Corporation v. Ram Avtar
Sharma‘, whereby the Writ Petition filed by the Appellant was dismissed.
LPA 972/2024 Page 1 of 17
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
14:32:13
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. The Respondent, Mr. Ram Avtar Sharma, entered the service of the
Appellant, Delhi Transport Corporation (“DTC”), as a daily-rated
Conductor on 30.07.1983 and was subsequently placed on monthly-rated
service on 30.01.1984. The Respondent was last posted at Okhla Depot-I of
the DTC.
3. On 24.04.1992, the Respondent was on duty on Bus No. 6214
operating on the Shivaji Stadium-Sohna route (“Bus”). At about 8:00 PM,
the Vigilance Checking Squad (“Squad”) intercepted the Bus at
Badshahpur, where a group of five passengers was found travelling without
tickets. Upon being questioned by the Squad, the said passengers stated that
they had paid the requisite fare to the Respondent. On further enquiry, the
Respondent admitted his lapse in not issuing the tickets, and, upon search
conducted by the Squad, un-punched tickets bearing Nos. 66667 to 66671 of
₹2/- each were recovered from his possession.
4. The Squad, thereafter, undertook a further inspection of the Bus and
found five additional passengers travelling without tickets. Upon enquiry,
those passengers also stated that they had paid the fare to the Respondent,
though no tickets had been issued to them. On examination of the ticket
hand block, the Squad recovered from the Respondent un-punched tickets
for travel from Gurgaon to Bhondasi bearing Nos. 82297 to 82299 and Nos.
83312 to 83313.
5. Upon receipt of the inspection report, the Respondent was placed
under suspension and a chargesheet was issued to him. The reply submitted
by the Respondent to the chargesheet was found to be unsatisfactory,
whereupon the matter was referred to the Enquiry Officer (West), Enquiry
LPA 972/2024 Page 2 of 17
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
14:32:13
Office (“Enquiry Officer”), for a detailed enquiry. In the said enquiry, the
charges of ‘misconduct’ were held to have been established vide final
enquiry report dated 29.10.1993 (“Enquiry Report”). Based on the Enquiry
Report, the Appellant removed the Respondent from the services with effect
from 19.10.1994 vide Memo No. OD-I/AIT/C-66/94/1929 dated 17.10.1994
(“Dismissal Order”).
6. Aggrieved by the Dismissal Order, the Respondent challenged the
same before the learned Labour Court, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
(“Labour Court”). The learned Labour Court, vide order dated 02.09.2009
(“Labour Court Order”) and award dated 03.05.2010 (“Award”), set aside
the punishment of removal and directed the DTC to reinstate the Respondent
with continuity of service for the purposes of seniority, pension, gratuity and
other consequential benefits, though without back wages.
7. The Appellant assailed the Award and the Labour Court Order before
this Court by instituting the Writ Petition. During the pendency of the Writ
Petition, the Respondent filed an application being C.M. No. 10178/2013
under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“Act”), which came
to be allowed vide order dated 07.02.2014.
8. Thereafter, vide the Impugned Order, the learned Single Judge
dismissed the Writ Petition and upheld the Award as well as the Labour
Court Order. Aggrieved thereby, the Appellant has preferred the present
Appeal.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
9. Mr. Rahul Kumar Verma, the learned Counsel for the Appellant made
the following submissions:
LPA 972/2024 Page 3 of 17
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
14:32:13
9.1. There was no violation of the principles of natural justice
during the enquiry proceedings, and the Respondent cannot be
permitted to derive any benefit from his own misconduct.
9.2. The learned Labour Court erred in holding that the Respondent
was not afforded an adequate opportunity to defend himself.
The Enquiry Report records that the Respondent did not bring
any co-worker to assist him during the enquiry proceedings,
which recording bears the Respondent’s signature and was not
objected to by him at any stage. The Respondent also
participated in the proceedings by cross-examining the
witnesses.
9.3. Further, in the enquiry proceedings dated 30.08.1993, it was
specifically recorded that the Respondent declined the
assistance of either a co-worker or the Labour Commissioner,
which was duly acknowledged by him. Likewise, in the
proceedings dated 15.09.1993, it was again recorded that the
Respondent declined to call a co-worker and refused the
assistance offered by the Labour Commissioner, which
endorsement was also signed by him.
9.4. The Respondent had a history of collecting fares from
passengers without issuing tickets, thereby causing loss to the
DTC, as is evident from his past record. The learned Single
Judge has in the Impugned Order observed that the Respondent
is not entitled to back wages in view of his past record. The
learned Labour Court had likewise declined to award back
wages to the Respondent on the same basis.
LPA 972/2024 Page 4 of 17
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
14:32:13
9.5. The Award records that the Respondent’s past record would be
taken into consideration while passing the final order or making
a recommendation. However, the Enquiry Report itself contains
no reference to the Respondent’s past record.
9.6. The learned Labour Court and the learned Single Judge erred in
holding that the Appellant had failed to supply the Log Book,
Driver Memo and Statements of Passengers. The presence of
the Squad was admitted by the Respondent in his cross-
examination before both the Enquiry Officer and the learned
Labour Court. In the course of such cross-examination, the
Respondent stated: “It is correct that my bus was checked on
24.04.1992. It is correct that a challan was issued against me
and I put my signature as per direction”.
9.7. Insofar as the Driver Memo is concerned, the Enquiry Officer
held the same to be unnecessary or irrelevant. The Respondent
also did not summon the driver of the Bus in his defence during
either the enquiry proceedings or the trial, though the said
driver was separately impleaded in the case. As regards the
Statements of Passengers, only the Squad members appeared
and were cross-examined in detail by the Respondent. All
relevant documents were supplied to the Respondent along with
the chargesheet against his signature, which fact was also
admitted by the Respondent during his cross-examination at
trial.
9.8. The learned Single Judge further erred in observing that the
learned Labour Court had found that the statements of Mr. Zile
LPA 972/2024 Page 5 of 17
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
14:32:13
Singh and Mr. Subhash did not mention the exact starting point,
the destination, or the fare paid by the passengers, and that no
statement had been recorded from the group of five passengers
who travelled from Gurgaon to Badshahpur. Accordingly, the
starting and ending points of travel, together with the names
and signatures of the passengers, stand recorded in Paragraph
No. 15 of the Award.
9.9. The learned Single Judge also failed to appreciate that the
Statements of Passengers were recorded in a moving Bus and
bore the Respondent’s signature.
9.10. The Appellant has relied upon the following judgments while
making the above submissions:
a. State of Haryana & Another v. Rattan Singh, (1977) 2
SCC 491;
b. Nathi Ram v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2018 SCC
OnLine Del 12099;
c. Biri Singh v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2022 SCC
OnLine Del 3066;
d. Delhi Transport Corporation v. Shree Kumar, 113
(2004) DLT 505;
e. Shyam Sunder v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 45
(1991) DLT 271; and
f. Kishori Lal v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2011 SCC
OnLine Del 1291.
9.11. In view of the above, it was prayed that the Impugned Order be
set aside and the present Appeal shall be allowed.
LPA 972/2024 Page 6 of 17
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
14:32:13
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
10. Mr. Vikram Singh, the learned Counsel for the Respondent made the
following submissions:
10.1. The Respondent contended that, although un-punched tickets
were taken into possession by the Squad, in reply to the
chargesheet, the Respondent specifically denied the allegations
and asserted that the charges were false and fabricated.
10.2. The Squad neither produced any co-passenger as a witness nor
recorded statements of the ticketless passengers. The cash in the
possession of the Respondent was not checked. The allegation
that the Respondent admitted his fault and voluntarily
surrendered the un-punched tickets is incorrect as the hand
blocks of tickets were forcibly taken from him by the Squad.
10.3. As per the DTC circular dated 28.05.1980, the chargesheet
ought to have been accompanied by the list of witnesses, their
statements, and the list of documents proposed to be relied
upon. It was further submitted that the necessary witnesses to
substantiate the charges were not examined, and that only one
witness, namely Ms. Phoolwati Jain, was examined, whose
version of the inspection did not support the Appellant’s case.
10.4. The cross-examination of Mr. B. P. Nigam, the Disciplinary
Authority, clearly demonstrated that no opportunity of hearing
was afforded to the Respondent before confirmation of the
punishment. It was also contended that the Respondent was
never given any opportunity to explain his past record at anyLPA 972/2024 Page 7 of 17
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
14:32:13
stage. In view of the same, the principles of natural justice were
not adhered to by the Appellant.
10.5. Before the learned Labour Court, a preliminary issue was
framed as to whether the Appellant had conducted a fair and
proper enquiry in accordance with the principles of natural
justice. The learned Labour Court, vide the Labour Court Order,
upon consideration of the pleadings and the documents placed
on record by the Appellant, categorically held that the
principles of natural justice had not been followed and that the
findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse. The learned
Labour Court also found that the Driver Memo, Statements of
Passengers and the Log Book had not been supplied to the
Respondent. It was further observed that even the Log Book,
though relied upon during the enquiry proceedings, was
withheld from the Respondent on the ground of irrelevance, and
that the Statements of Passengers had likewise not been
furnished to him.
10.6. The Enquiry Officer did not properly explain to him that he was
entitled to the assistance of a co-worker as a Defence Assistant.
During the enquiry proceedings on 30.08.1993, the Respondent
was made to sign merely as a token of having inspected the
passengers’ statements. The past record was taken into account
while passing the final order, though the same had neither been
disclosed to the Respondent nor enclosed with the chargesheet.
No real opportunity of inspection had been extended to the
Respondent, notwithstanding the statement of the Enquiry
LPA 972/2024 Page 8 of 17
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
14:32:13
Officer before the learned Labour Court that inspection had
been allowed.
10.7. The Appellant was afforded full opportunity before the learned
Labour Court to lead evidence in support of the charges,
however failed to prove the same. The Respondent was not
given any opportunity to explain the past record, which was
relied upon by the Appellant while imposing punishment.
10.8. This Court in Delhi Transport Corporation v. Shyam Singh,
Neutral Citation: 2012:DHC:2113-DB, has held that, in the
absence of a cash check of the Conductor, the charges could not
be said to have been proved. In that case, the learned Labour
Court had directed reinstatement without back wages but with
continuity of service and consequential benefits.
10.9. In view of the foregoing submissions, it was prayed that the
Impugned Order be upheld and that the present Appeal be
dismissed with costs in favour of the Respondent.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Labour Court Order and Award
11. The learned Labour Court decided Issue No. 1 against the Appellant,
which pertained to whether the management had failed to conduct a fair and
proper enquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
12. The learned Labour Court recorded that, although the Appellant had
otherwise followed the principles of natural justice, it had failed to supply
certain material documents, namely the Driver Memo, the Log Book and the
Statements of Passengers. The copy of the Log Book was declined on the
ground that it was irrelevant. The learned Labour Court further held that the
LPA 972/2024 Page 9 of 17
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
14:32:13
non-supply of the Statements of Passengers, coupled with the Respondent
being permitted only inspection thereof, did not satisfy the requirements of
the principles of natural justice.
13. The learned Labour Court also noted that the chargesheet expressly
stated that the past record of the Respondent would be taken into
consideration at the time of passing the final order or making a
recommendation. The learned Labour Court held that the failure of the DTC
to enclose the said past record with the chargesheet constituted a lapse
offending the principles of natural justice.
14. The learned Labour Court further held that, in the absence of
satisfactory evidence to establish that the Respondent had been afforded an
effective opportunity to inspect the relevant documents, in view of the non-
supply of the Log Book which the Respondent had asserted to be relevant,
the non-enclosure of the past record with the chargesheet, and the improper
denial of the assistance of a Defence Assistant, Issue No. 1 stood vitiated.
15. Accordingly, the learned Labour Court decided Issue No. 1 in favour
of the Respondent and against the DTC.
16. The learned Labour Court further passed the Award, after considering
the submissions of the Parties and examining the evidence, concluding that
the Respondent was entitled to relief and allowed the Statement of Claim.
17. The Award records two irregularities:
i. When the Bus was checked by the Squad on 24.04.1992, the group
of five passengers informed that they had paid the due fare and the
Respondent did not issue the tickets. Acknowledging the
irregularity, the Respondent had surrendered the un-punched tickets
bearing Nos. 66667 to 66671 of ₹2/- each; andLPA 972/2024 Page 10 of 17
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
14:32:13
ii. Five passengers were found in the Bus ticketless from Gurgaon to
Bhondasi though the five passengers paid the fare to the
Respondent. The Respondent handed over the un-punched tickets
bearing Nos. 82297 to 82299 and Nos. 83312 to 83313.
18. The Award records that the cash in the possession of the Respondent
was not checked by the Squad and, accordingly, holds that the DTC had
failed to establish the charge of ‘misconduct’ through cogent evidence,
thereby entitling the Respondent to reinstatement. The Award further notes
that the entries in the past record were not disputed by the Respondent. It
records that the Respondent had been issued a warning in the year 1986 for
performing duties without uniform; in 1987, he was visited with stoppage of
the next due increment for non-issuance of tickets after collecting fare; and
in 1989, he was again issued a warning for refusing to hand over the un-
punched tickets to the Squad.
19. Accordingly, the Award holds that the Respondent is not entitled to
any back wages. The claim of the Respondent was allowed, and the DTC
was directed to reinstate him with continuity of service for the purposes of
seniority, pension, gratuity and all other consequential benefits. The Award
further directed that such reinstatement be implemented within thirty days
from the date of the publication of Award.
Impugned Order
20. The learned Single Judge recorded that the non-supply of the Log
Book, coupled with the absence of proper material to establish that the
Respondent had been permitted to inspect the documents relied upon during
the enquiry proceedings, vitiated the enquiry. The learned Single Judge
further observed that the fact that the Respondent was not permitted to be
LPA 972/2024 Page 11 of 17
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
14:32:13
represented by a Defence Assistant, together with the non-enclosure of the
past record with the chargesheet, clearly established that the enquiry
proceedings had been conducted in breach of the principles of natural
justice.
21. The learned Single Judge held that the learned Labour Court had
correctly concluded that the enquiry proceedings stood vitiated and were
perverse, and that the Labour Court Order suffered from neither illegality
nor any error apparent on the face of the record.
22. The learned Single Judge further recorded that the learned Labour
Court had rightly found the statements of the passengers to be fraught with
discrepancies, inasmuch as the statements of Mr. Zile Singh and Mr.
Subhash did not disclose the exact point of commencement of travel, the
destination, or the amount paid by the passengers as fare as only two names
were forthcoming and no statement had been recorded from the group of
five passengers, who were alleged to have travelled from Gurgaon to
Badshahpur.
23. The learned Single Judge also noted that the statement of another
passenger, namely Mr. Abhey Singh, who was stated to be travelling from
Gurgaon to Badshahpur, lacked authenticity, since the number of ticketless
passengers mentioned therein did not tally with the names of the passengers
and the statement did not specify the point from which the journey
commenced or the amount paid by each passenger to the Respondent. The
learned Single Judge further noticed the observation in the Award that the
Statements of Passengers were not consistent with the oral testimony, and
that in such circumstances the Squad ought to have verified the cash in the
Respondent’s possession.
LPA 972/2024 Page 12 of 17
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
14:32:13
24. The learned Single Judge held that, since the DTC had failed to
establish that any ‘misconduct’ had been committed by the Respondent, the
Respondent was entitled to reinstatement. Insofar as back wages were
concerned, it was held that the Respondent was not entitled thereto in view
of his past record. Accordingly, the Award was found to suffer from neither
illegality nor any error apparent on the face of the record.
25. Accordingly, the Impugned Order upheld the Labour Court Order and
the Award and consequently dismissed the Writ Petition.
Conclusion
26. Before adverting to the conclusion, it is apposite to discuss the
decision relied upon by learned Counsel for the Respondent in Shyam Singh
(supra). In the said case, a Division Bench of this Court was concerned with
a comparable factual matrix involving a DTC Conductor who stood charged
with collecting fare from passengers without issuing tickets. While
upholding the order of reinstatement passed by the learned Labour Court,
the Division Bench specifically noted that the Squad had failed to verify the
cash found in the possession of the Conductor at the time of the checking.
The Court held that, in the absence of such cash verification, the charge of
misappropriation of fare could not be said to have been conclusively
established on the evidence.
27. Consequently, reinstatement of the Conductor was directed, albeit
without back wages, but with continuity of service and all consequential
benefits. The Division Bench of this Court in Shyam Singh (supra) relied
upon the legal position settled by the Supreme Court in Syndicate Bank v.
The General Secretary, Syndicate Bank Staff Association, (2000) 5 SCC
65, wherein it was held that the principles of natural justice require:
LPA 972/2024 Page 13 of 17
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
14:32:13
i. The workman must be made aware of the nature of the complaint or
accusation against him;
ii. He must be given a genuine opportunity to state his case; and
iii. The management must act in good faith, meaning its action must be
fair, reasonable and just.
28. It was further observed that the requirements of natural justice are not
confined to the mere giving of an opportunity of hearing, and that the mere
fact that a hearing was provided does not, by itself, bar an Industrial
Adjudicator from interfering with the disciplinary action of the management.
If, despite giving an appropriate opportunity of hearing, the action of the
management is found to be arbitrary and unreasonable, it would qualify as
perverse and would be open to interference as also held by the Supreme
Court in Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra, AIR 1999 SC
625.
29. In the facts of the present case, the Squad intercepted the Bus on
24.04.1992 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
LPA 972/2024 Page 14 of 17
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
14:32:13
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.
30. Apart from the aforesaid evidentiary deficiencies, the enquiry
proceedings themselves stood vitiated by multiple breaches of the principles
of natural justice. First, the Log Book, which the Respondent had
specifically sought as relevant to his defence, was denied to him on the
ground that the Enquiry Officer considered it irrelevant. Second, the
Statements of Passengers were not supplied to the Respondent; he was
merely permitted to inspect the same, which cannot be regarded as an
adequate substitute for the furnishing of copies. Third, although the record
indicates that the Respondent was informed of the availability of a Defence
Assistant, the evidence does not satisfactorily establish that such right was
properly explained to him on each date of enquiry in the manner required by
law. Fourth, and most significantly, the chargesheet itself stated that the past
service record of the Respondent would be taken into consideration while
passing the final order, yet the said past record was not enclosed therewith
and no opportunity was afforded to the Respondent to explain or rebut the
same. The reliance upon a person’s past record for the purpose of imposing
a more severe punishment, without granting such person an opportunity to
address the same, constitutes a settled infraction of the principles of natural
justice.
LPA 972/2024 Page 15 of 17
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
14:32:13
31. Upon a careful consideration of the submissions advanced on behalf
of the Parties, we are of the considered view that the Impugned Order
correctly appreciates both the factual matrix and the governing legal
principles. The learned Single Judge, in our opinion, rightly upheld the
findings of the learned Labour Court that the enquiry proceedings were
vitiated and that the Appellant had failed to prove the charge of
‘misconduct’ before the learned Labour Court by cogent, reliable and
consistent evidence.
32. The reliance placed by the Appellant on the authorities cited on its
behalf is misplaced as those decisions having arisen in distinct factual
settings where the charges stood duly established on credible material,
which is absent in the present case. The past record of the Respondent,
reflecting similar lapses, has already been duly taken into consideration by
both the learned Labour Court and the learned Single Judge while declining
the relief of back wages.
33. We are of the view that the learned Single Judge has correctly held
that the Appellant was unable to establish the charge of ‘misconduct’ against
the Respondent to the requisite standard, particularly in light of the failure to
check the cash of the Respondent, the inconsistencies in the passenger
statements, and the non-supply of relevant documents during the enquiry.
34. The principles laid down in Shyam Singh (supra), as grounded in
Syndicate Bank (supra) and Apparel Export Promotion Council (supra)
apply squarely to the facts of this case and support the order of reinstatement
with continuity of service. The denial of back wages, on account of the
Respondent’s unsatisfactory past record, is equally justified and warrants no
interference. The Impugned Order does not suffer from any legal infirmity,
LPA 972/2024 Page 16 of 17
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
14:32:13
perversity, or error apparent on the face of the record that would warrant
interference by this Court.
35. In view of the above analysis, we find no ground warranting
interference with the conclusion in the Award as well as Impugned Order.
Accordingly, there is no infirmity with the Impugned Order dated
14.05.2024, which is hereby upheld. Consequently, the present Appeal
stands dismissed along with the pending Application. There shall be no
order as to costs.
TEJAS KARIA, J
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ
MAY 23, 2026
‘N’
LPA 972/2024 Page 17 of 17
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
14:32:13
