Negligence of Licensing Authority Resulted in Loss of Salary — Driver Entitled to Compensation Beyond Token Relief: Delhi High Court

In a strong indictment of bureaucratic apathy and its real-world consequences, the Delhi High Court held that the failure of the Motor Licensing Officer (MLO) and Motor Licensing Authority (MLA) to issue a duplicate driving license — despite clear evidence of its validity — amounted to actionable negligence, warranting compensation.

Allowing the Regular First Appeal Justice Mini Pushkarna observed that the licensing authorities' inaction “wrongly deprived the appellant of performing his duties as a driver and, consequently, of receiving the salary he was otherwise entitled to.” The Court enhanced the compensation by ₹30,000, over and above ₹15,000 granted by the Trial Court, with interest at 9% per annum.

“Public Records Carry Presumption of Correctness — Trial Court Erred in Discarding Salary Register”: High Court Restores Evidentiary Sanctity Under Section 35 Evidence Act

Delivering a detailed and evidence-driven judgment, the Court castigated the Trial Court for rejecting cogent documentary evidence produced by DTC regarding the appellant’s salary entitlement.

“The Trial Court wrongly ignored the deposition by PW2 and the original record maintained by DTC, i.e., Ex. PW2/A… In the absence of any evidence to prove that the said record was incorrect, forged or fabricated, its correctness cannot be doubted,” held the High Court.

Referring to Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Court reaffirmed the settled legal position that official records maintained in the discharge of public duty are presumptively valid. The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s rulings in Manoj @ Monu v. State of Haryana (2022) 6 SCC 187 and Union of India v. S. Narasimhulu Naidu (2021) 20 SCC 321 to hold that unless rebutted, such public documents are admissible and reliable.

Judicial Observation: “The appellant was never terminated and continued in service — the loss of salary was caused solely due to the negligence of respondent authorities”

The Court traced the cause of action to the events of May 1996, when the appellant, a permanent DTC driver, lost his driving license. Though DTC records confirmed the license’s validity until 20th December 1996, the MLO refused to issue a duplicate, wrongly citing expiry as of 15th November 1993.

Despite submitting a certificate from DTC and a police report of the lost license, the MLO persisted in denying the duplicate. This led to the appellant being barred from driving duties from February 1997 to February 2001, though he remained on payroll. He was eventually assigned desk duties from 14th February 2001, and only after a Civil Court order in 2002 was a duplicate license issued and his driver duty restored.

The High Court emphasized that “the appellant continued to be in service and was never formally terminated. Thus, he was entitled to the salary difference between desk duty and driver’s pay, which was caused solely due to the inaction of respondent authorities.”

“This Was Not a Suit for Back Wages, But for Damages Arising From Negligence” — Limitation Misapplied by Trial Court

Rejecting the Trial Court’s reasoning that only damages from 1999 onwards could be claimed due to limitation, the High Court clarified that the suit was not for back wages, but for tortious negligence.

“The Trial Court proceeded on a wrong premise by not appreciating that the suit filed by the appellant was for damages resulting from the negligence… and was not a suit for recovery of back wages from respondent no. 4,” Justice Pushkarna held.

The Court found that the appellant had a continuous cause of action beginning from the refusal of license till the issuance of the duplicate in 2002, and his suit, filed in September 2002, was well within the period of limitation for claiming compensation.

Court Holds MLO and MLA Liable — Exonerates DTC from Wrongdoing

The Court drew a distinction between the conduct of the DTC and that of the licensing authorities, noting that DTC did not commit any misconduct, and in fact took a lenient view by not terminating the appellant. DTC even allowed desk duties upon request in 2001 and restored driver duties immediately after the duplicate license was issued.

“The DTC was justified in releasing only limited amounts to the appellant during the period when the appellant did not discharge duties as a driver, though he continued to remain in the service of DTC,” the judgment observed.

The Court held that the sole liability for the salary loss during 1997–2001 lay with the Government of NCT of Delhi, particularly the MLO and MLA, whose negligence was conclusively established.

The ruling lays down key legal propositions. Firstly, government officials can be held personally liable for administrative negligence that causes financial loss to individuals. Secondly, the distinction between claims for salary and claims for damages arising from negligence was clearly underscored. Thirdly, the judgment reaffirmed the evidentiary value of public documents under the Evidence Act, particularly in civil liability contexts.

Further, the judgment highlights the importance of judicial reasoning in evaluating documentary evidence, and cautions against arbitrary rejection of public records without adequate rebuttal.

The Court allowed the Regular First Appeal in part and modified the decree of the Trial Court. The appellant was held entitled to an additional ₹30,000 as damages with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing the appeal till realization. The finding of negligence against the MLO and MLA attained finality, and no relief was granted against the DTC.

The case now stands as an important precedent on the accountability of public officers in performing statutory duties and the compensatory rights of public employees in case of official apathy.

Date of Decision: 08 September 2025