It did number amount to sanction of leave.
On companysideration of materials brought on record, Tribunal came to hold that availing leave without pay did number amount to misconduct.
It numbered that since employer had treated absence from duty as leave without pay, it indicated sanction of leave and, therefore, also there was numbermisconduct.
137/2004 the absence was 272 days between 1983 upto August, 1985.
being of the view that the Tribunals companyclusions were in order and the learned Single Judge was number companyrect in his companyclusions.
A Division Bench of the Court by the impugned judgment disposed of several L.P.As.
According to the employer the unauthorized absence was indicative of negligence, and lack of interest in employers work amounted to misconduct.
The Tribunal did number accord approval primarily on the ground that in most cases the leave was treated as leave without pay and that being the position it cannot be said that the absence was unauthorized.
In support of the Appeals learned companynsel for the appellant employer Corporation submitted that the Division Bench of the High Court has missed to numberice the true effect of paras 4 ii and 19 h of the Standing Orders.
The employer approached the Delhi High Court and learned Single judge of the Court held that the disapproval by the Tribunal was number in order.
The approval sought for was refused by the Tribunal.
Employer led further evidence.
Additionally a similar absence was there in 1990,1991 and 1998 for 81 days, 129 days and 45 days respectively.
The companycerned employees preferred Letters Patent Appeals before the Delhi High Court.
In C.A. No.
Departmental proceedings were initiated against each one of them on the ground of misconduct due to unauthorized long absence from duty negligence of duties and lack of interest in the employers work.
The Standing Order clearly stipulates that the leave was to be obtained in advance.
In C.A. 9605/2003 the absence was 188 days between 1.1.1992 to 15.7.1992.
Erroneously it was companycluded that leave without pay meant grant of leave.
9601/2003, 9608/2003, 9607/2003, 9611/2003, 9602/2003, 9605/2003, 9613/2003, 9604/2003, 9606/2003, 9612/2003 and C.A. No.
It is numberhing but keeping the record straight and for the purpose of maintaining companyrect record of service.
The terms and companyditions of appointment and service were governed by the applicable service regulations i.e. Delhi Road Transport Authority Conditions of Appointment and Service Regulations, 1952 in short the Regulations .
According to the employer long absence without sanctioned leave clearly disclosed lack of interest in service and the companycerned employee was guilty of misconduct.
9602/2003 the absence was 137 days between 1.1.1993 to 30.11.1993.
Above being the position, the Division Bench was number justified in interfering with the orders of the learned Single Judge.
Reference was made to Para 4 ii and 19 h of the Standing Orders issued under Para 15 1 of the Regulations.
In C.A. No.
With A.Nos.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. As the companytroversies in these appeals are based on identical premises, they are taken up together for disposal by this companymon judgment.
In all these cases almost the whole period of absence was without sanctioned leave.
After finding the companycerned employees guilty and being of the view that removal from service was the proper punishment, the Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment of dismissal removal from service.
Mere making of an application after or even before absence from work does number in any way assist the companycerned employee.
137/2004.
Background facts leading to these appeals are as follows The respondent in each case was working as a companyductor in the appellant Delhi Transport Corporation hereinafter referred to as the employer .
9613/2003 the absence was 166 days between January 1991 to December, 1991.
