Departmental Instructions Not Being Mandatory, Non-Compliance Does Not Vitiate Enquiry If Guilt Is Proved By Other Cogent Evidence: Delhi High Court

"It is no more res integra that non-compliance with departmental instructions does not ex facie vitiate enquiry proceedings. Any violation thereof would not ipso facto negate the enquiry proceedings, and absence of such particulars would only have a bearing on the enquiry if there is no other cogent evidence to lead to a finding of guilt." Delhi High Court, in a judgment dated 16 September 2026, held that the failure to strictly adhere to departmental office orders and instructions—such as the mandatory verification of a conductor’s cash or the examination of independent passengers—does not automatically render an enquiry proceeding void.

A bench of Justice Amit Mahajan observed that while such procedures serve as useful rules of prudence to standardize departmental processes, they do not hold the status of mandatory statutory requirements.

The petitioner, a bus conductor with the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC), challenged his removal from service following an inspection in 1994, where eleven passengers were found travelling without tickets despite having paid fares to the conductor. The Labour Court had previously upheld the enquiry and the subsequent punishment of removal, finding that the petitioner was given a fair opportunity to defend himself.

The primary question before the court was whether the failure to verify the cash in the conductor’s possession and the non-examination of independent passengers in strict compliance with internal departmental circulars vitiated the enquiry proceedings. The court was also tasked with determining the extent of its own jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in re-appreciating evidence settled by a Labour Court.

Scope of Writ Jurisdiction

The Court reiterated that its jurisdiction under Article 226 is supervisory rather than appellate. Consequently, it is not empowered to re-examine or re-appreciate evidence to substitute its own opinion for that of the Labour Court, provided the Labour Court's findings are plausible and not perverse.

Non-Mandatory Nature of Internal Circulars

The petitioner placed heavy reliance on the non-compliance of various DTC circulars mandating the checking of cash and recording of passenger statements. The Court clarified that such instructions are administrative in nature and function as rules of prudence. Their non-compliance does not result in the automatic vitiation of enquiry proceedings unless it is shown that the delinquent was denied a fair opportunity or suffered tangible prejudice.

Sufficiency of Evidence in Misconduct

Regarding the lack of cash verification, the Court noted that while such a step would strengthen the management's case, it is not an indispensable legal requirement. The Court held that even in the absence of cash tallying, the charge of misconduct—specifically the non-issuance of tickets—can be sufficiently proved through the testimony of checking staff and other circumstantial material, provided the evidence is consistent and reliable.

"The absence of written statements, though not worthy of approval, was understandable," noted the Court, drawing upon the principle laid down in State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh. The Court further observed that the management had made reasonable efforts to secure the presence of passengers, and their absence did not create a lacuna that would render the enquiry unsustainable, given that the checking staff's testimony remained consistent and unrebutted during cross-examination.

Rejection of 'Automatic Vitiation' Argument

The Court distinguished the present matter from cases where enquiries were set aside due to material inconsistencies in evidence. It held that where the management’s witnesses remained steadfast and the delinquent failed to identify specific prejudice caused by the procedural lapses, the court would not interfere. The Court emphasized that conjecture regarding the conduct of passengers cannot form the basis for overturning concurrent findings of guilt by a domestic tribunal.

Finding no legal infirmity in the Labour Court’s assessment of the guilt or the proportionality of the punishment, especially in light of the petitioner’s history of repeated misconduct, the Court dismissed the writ petition. The ruling reinforces the doctrine that departmental enquiry procedures, unless explicitly statutory, must be interpreted through the prism of fairness rather than rigid, technical adherence.

Date of Decision: 16 September 2026