Not Allowing Representation By A Defence Assistant Is Violative Of Principles Of Natural Justice: Delhi High Court

A single judge bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh in the case of Delhi Transport Corporation Vs Ram Avatar Sharma has held that a person not being allowed to be represented by a defence assistant & non-enclosure of past record of the person in chargesheet established that an enquiry proceedings is conducted in violation of principles of natural justice Background Facts Ram Avatar Sharma (Respondent) joined Delhi Transport Corporation (Petitioner) in 1984. The Respondent was given a chargesheet on the ground that he did not issue a ticket even after collecting the fare from passengers. The matter was submitted to the Enquiry Officer, who submitted his report and on the basis of the report, the Disciplinary Authority issued a Show Cause Notice. Pursuant to the Show Cause Notice, the Disciplinary Authority terminated the services of the Respondent. The Respondent approached the authorities against the order of termination and the matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal (Tribunal) by the Appropriate Government. In 2009, the Tribunal held that the inquiry against the Respondent was not in accordance with the Principles of Natural Justice and ordered the Respondent to be reinstated without back wages. Thus, the writ petition was filed. It was contended by the Petitioner that the Tribunal had wrongfully held that the enquiry proceedings were conducted in violation of principals of natural justice as the Enquiry Officer had given the finding that the workman was guilty of misconduct after taking all documents into consideration. Further the Tribunal had wrongfully held that non-attachment of past record with the chargesheet was a ground for disputing the authenticity of the chargesheet. Also, the Tribunal absolved the Respondent from any punishment by giving him the benefit of doubt but the said principle is not applicable to departmental proceedings. On the other hand, it was contended by the Respondent that the Enquiry Officer did not supply to the Respondent the relevant documents which were taken into consideration by the enquiry authority in holding the Respondent guilty of misconduct. Further there is a violation of principles of natural justice since the Respondent was not given an opportunity to present his case properly by engaging a defence assistant. Findings of the Court The court observed that it was noted by the Tribunal in its award that the Respondent could not bring a defence assistant as he was not informed by the Enquiry Officer that he was entitled to a co-worker who could act his defence assistant and thus the Respondent was denied the opportunity to be assisted by a defence assistant. The Tribunal further observed that the Respondent had demanded the “log book” during the enquiry proceedings but the same was denied to be supplied to him on the ground that it was not relevant for the enquiry. Finally, the Tribunal observed that the enquiry was in violation of principles of natural justice on the ground that the Respondent was not supplied with the copy documents such as the driver memo or the log book and was only allowed to inspect the statement of passengers. Agreeing with the findings of the Tribunal, the court held that: “This Court is of the view that non-supply of the log book and absence of proper documents to prove the fact that the petitioner was allowed to inspect the documents considered during the inquiry proceedings, vitiated the enquiry proceedings. Moreover, the factum that the respondent was not allowed to be represented by the defence assistant as well as the past record was not enclosed with the chargesheet, establishes that the enquiry proceedings were conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice.” The court further held that the Petitioner was not able to establish that any misconduct was committed by Respondent and thus the Respondent was entitled to be reinstated. With the aforesaid observations, the court dismissed the writ petition. Case No.- W.P.(C) 6785/2011 Date of Order- 14th May 2024 Case Name- Delhi Transport Corporation Vs Ram Avatar SharmaCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 694 Counsel for Petitioners- Mr.Uday N.Tiwary & Mr.Akshat Tiwary, Advocates Counsel for Respondents- Mr.Vikram Singh, Advocate Click Here To Read/Download Order

Not Allowing Representation By A Defence Assistant Is Violative Of Principles Of Natural Justice: Delhi High Court

Udai Yashvir Singh

Tags