* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA No. 689/2011
% Date of Decision: August 25, 2011
Roshan Lal Sharma ....Appellant
Through Mohd. Azam Ansari, Advocate.
VERSUS
Delhi Transport Corporation .....Respondent
Through Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
The appellant Roshan Lal Sharma has filed the present intra court appeal assailing the decision dated 5th August, 2011, passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing his writ petition wherein he had challenged the award dated 6th September, 2007 passed by the Labour Court, Karkardooma.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that both the industrial adjudicator and the Single Judge have erred in holding that there was evidence or material that the appellant had not issued tickets to the passengers. It is submitted that the enquiry proceedings initiated by respondent Delhi Transport LPA 689/2011 Page 1 of 4 Corporation were sham and there is no evidence whatsoever against the appellant that he had received or collected due fare and not issued tickets to the passengers. The cash was not checked and the ticket block was not sealed. It is further submitted that the appellant had an unblemished record from 1982 onwards and this factor has been ignored.
3. The appellant in 1982 was appointed as a Conductor and was lastly posted at B.B.M. Depot-II. On 16th June, 1995, while on duty on bus No. 9497, the checking staff on boarding the bus found that six passengers had paid the full fare but had not been issued tickets. The appellant refused to get cash checked and also refused to accept the challan and sign on the statements made by the passengers. He tried to harm himself and raised hue and cry in the bus. Charge-sheet dated 3rd July, 1995 was issued and enquiry proceedings were conducted and he was removed from service on 13th March, 1997.
4. Proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, were initiated and a reference was made whether removal of the appellant was illegal and/or unjustified and if so, what relief the appellant was entitled to. The appellant examined himself and LPA 689/2011 Page 2 of 4 management relied upon the enquiry report. After examining the evidence and material on record, the industrial adjudicator held that the enquiry proceedings were conducted fairly and principles of natural justice were followed. It was further held that there was no perversity in the report of the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer has taken into consideration the statements of the passengers which were recorded by the checking staff. It is also well settled that in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act do not apply. All material which is logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. Hearsay evidence is permitted and can be relied provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. The industrial adjudicator does not act as a appellate forum while examining the report of the enquiry officer in the domestic proceedings. An industrial adjudicator can interfere when there is want of good faith or unfair labour practice etc. on the part of the management.
5. It is the duty of the conductor to issue tickets to the passengers and account for the fare collected from the passengers to the management. If he is dishonest and collects fare but does not issue tickets, he is guilty of serious misconduct. Further LPA 689/2011 Page 3 of 4 gravity of misconduct cannot be minimized by the fact that he has been caught for the first time for there is no guarantee that he had not acted dishonestly in the past as well which went undetected. Even one such conduct of dishonesty amounting to breach of faith may invite serious punishment as held in Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. vs. Swamy, (2007) 12 SCC 40.
6. Keeping in view the aforesaid position, we do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed in limine. No orders as to costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
CHIEF JUSTICE August 25, 2011 kkb LPA 689/2011 Page 4 of 4