The Delhi High Court has dismissed a long-pending petition filed by the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) challenging an Industrial Tribunal award in favour of a conductor, holding that the Tribunal’s findings did not suffer from any legal error warranting interference.
Justice Amit Mahajan delivered the judgment on September 2, 2026, in W.P.(C) 11107/2005. The case concerned disciplinary proceedings arising from a bus inspection in 1994.
Background of the Case
The respondent was working as a conductor with DTC. According to the department, during a bus check on November 15, 1994, he had collected ₹67 from a group of passengers but had not issued tickets to three passengers. He was suspended and issued a charge sheet in December 1994.
The enquiry officer did not find the charges established. However, the disciplinary authority disagreed and proceeded against him, ultimately removing him from service in August 1996. The appellate authority later set aside the removal and directed his reinstatement without back wages, while reducing him to the initial stage of the conductor pay scale for two years.
Court’s Observation
The High Court noted that although a disciplinary authority can disagree with an enquiry officer, such disagreement must first be communicated tentatively, along with reasons, so that the employee gets an opportunity to respond.
The Court observed:
“where the findings are in favour of the delinquent, such disagreement must be tentative and the reasons for disagreement, along with the findings of the enquiry officer, must be communicated to the delinquent so as to afford him an opportunity to make a representation before a final decision is taken.”
The Court found that no such disagreement note was issued. Instead, the show-cause notice proposing removal proceeded as though the disciplinary authority had already reached its decision.
The Court also took note that DTC had continued litigating the issue of 17 months’ back wages for nearly 32 years, describing the prolonged litigation over the limited claim as an abuse of the process of law and noting the avoidable expenditure of public money.
Decision
The Delhi High Court dismissed DTC’s petition and upheld the Industrial Tribunal’s findings. It imposed ₹1 lakh in costs on the petitioner Department, directing ₹25,000 to the DHLSC, ₹50,000 to the PM Relief Fund and ₹25,000 to the respondent.
The Department was permitted to recover the cost from the officer responsible for pursuing the dispute.
Case Details
- Case Title: D.T.C. v. Rajender Prashad
- Case Number: W.P.(C) 11107/2005
- Judge: Justice Amit Mahajan
- Decision Date: September 2, 2026
 Act (UAPA)-300x169.webp)
