Delhi High Court
Hori Singh Ex. Conductor Bedge No. ... vs Delhi Transport Corporation ... on 4 September, 2006
Author: S N Dhingra
Bench: S N Dhingra
JUDGMENT
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the award dated 1.4.2006 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-II, Karkardooma Court, whereby the Tribunal held that there was no ground to interfere in the punishment imposed on the petitioner and also held that the inquiry held against the petitioner was fair and proper.
2. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner was working as a conductor with DTC. Every conductor has been issued a locker by the DTC where the conductor is supposed to keep unused tickets and one key of the locker remains with the management. It is the duty of the conductor that when he is not on duty, all his tickets are to be kept in the locker and he has to maintain the record of tickets issued to him. Similarly, he is also supposed to keep the tickets issued to him which are not in use or he has to return. 1038 tickets of denomination of Rs. 4 were with the petitioner before 1.8.1994. These tickets have been taken out of the circulation by the respondent DTC. The petitioner was supposed to return these tickets or to keep the tickets in the locker. He was not supposed to take these tickets on duty because these tickets were not to be issued to the passengers.
3. On 1.8.1994, the locker of the petitioner was checked by DTC Authorities as per rules. A team of persons had inspected the locker. A report about checking of locker was entered into the register maintained by the respondent. It was found that 1034 tickets of Rs. 4 were missing. The petitioner was on duty on that day on bus route No.523 Mehrauli to Bhati Mines in the evening and he lodged a report at about 10.30 pm on 1.8.1994 itself that he had lost bundles of Rs. 4/- tickets which he was carrying and has placed into the dickey in the bus. While he was in the bus going from one end to other, somebody had picked up these tickets and stolen the same.
4. A charge sheet was served on the petitioner that he misappropriated the amount of tickets of Rs. 4 and in order to give a cover up to this misappropriation(when he learnt that his locker has been checked) he lodged a false FIR with the police station. After charge sheet an inquiry was conducted. Inquiry officer, after conducting the inquiry, found that the charges have been proved and sent a report to disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority, after giving opportunity to the petitioner of hearing on the question of penalty, imposed a penalty of removal from service.
5. The petitioner challenged this termination and imposition of penalty and a dispute was referred to Industrial Tribunal for adjudication to the following effect:
Whether the punishment imposed on Shri Hori Singh s/o Shri Karan Singh by the Management vide their orders dated 29.11.1994 is illegal and/or unjustified, and if so to what relief is he entitled and what direction are necessary in this respect
6. The Industrial Tribunal, after considering the claim and response of the management, framed following issues:
ISSUES:
(i)Whether the punishment imposed in without holding a legal and valid inquiry? (OPW)
(ii)If issue No. 1 is decided in favor of workman, whether the workman has committed the misconduct?(OPM)
(iii)Whether the punishment imposed vide order dated 17.12.1995 is illegal and unjustified?(OPW)
(iv)In terms of reference.
7. After recording evidence of both sides, the Industrial Tribunal gave to a finding that the inquiry conducted against the petitioner was a fair and proper inquiry and the punishment imposed on the petitioner was not disproportionate.
8. The award has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the Tribunal failed to consider that the inquiry was actuated by malice. The other ground is that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend himself nor any question was put by the inquiry officer to test the veracity of department witnesses and the inquiry officer relied upon statement of single departmental witness. The petitioner was illegally removed from service on the basis of unfair inquiry. The other ground is that there were six persons who had conducted the search of locker of the petitioner but only one was examined as a witness.
9. It has been held by Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Anr. v. Ratan Singh that an Enquiry officer can take into consideration all probative evidence. Supreme Court observed:
In a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Evidence Act may not apply. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. the departmental authorities and administrative tribunals must be careful in evaluating such material and should not glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not relevant under the Evidence Act.
The sufficiency of evidence in proof of the finding by a domestic tribunal is beyond scrutiny. Absence of any evidence in support of a finding is certainly available for the court to look into because it amounts to an error of law apparent on the record.
Where a bus conductor of a State Transport undertaking was charge-sheeted for not collecting fares from certain passengers and on his guilt being established there was simple termination of his services because of his long services and young age, it could not be said that merely because statements of passengers were not recorded by the Inspector of the flying squad, the order that followed was invalid. The evidence of the Inspector was some evidence which had relevance to the charge against the bus conductor: order of simple termination of services was valid(Para 5 and 6).
10. The plea of respondent of violation of principles of natural justice is made without any basis. Violation of natural justice cannot be used as a pedantic phrase but grounds have to be given how natural justice is violated. Workman has also to show that a prejudice has been caused by such violation. In 2005 1 LLJ Supreme Court 557 Divisional Manager, Plantation Division, Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Mannu Barrick and Others, Supreme Court held:
The Principles of natural justice cannot be put in a strait-jacket formula. It must be viewed with flexibility. In a given case, where a deviation takes place as regard compliance of the principles of natural justice, the Court may insist aside the order impugned before it. (See Bar Council of India v. High Court of Kerala ). (para 17)
11. The petitioner has failed to show violation of principles of natural justice or any prejudice caused to him.
12. The lodging of report by the petitioner with the police on the same day in the night when his locker was checked, itself throws doubts and suspicion on the conduct of the petitioner. He was not supposed to carry or use Rs. 4 tickets as they had been withdrawn and were out of circulation. He was not supposed to issue the same to passengers. He had not deposited the tickets before 1.8.1994. It was only on 1.8.1994, when his locker was checked, then he suddenly lodged a report that his Rs.4/- denomination tickets numbering more than 1000 had been lost. Though he had deposited the amount of the loss of Rs. 5000/- to DTC, but deposit of amount lost does not absolve his misconduct.
13. I find no merits in the writ petition, same is hereby dismissed. No orders as to cost.
