Delhi High Court
Ramesh Chand vs D.T.C on 3 September, 2007
Bench: M Sharma, S Khanna
ORDER
1. This appeal is directed against the orders dated 3rd November, 2006 and 31st May, 2007. By order dated 31st May, 2007, the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed and in this order reference to the findings made in order dated 3rd November, 2006.
2. The respondent-Delhi Transport Corporation instituted an inquiry by issuing a chargsheet to the appellant that he had committed theft of 15 ltrs of Mobil Oil. The Disciplinary authority held that the appellant was guilty and consequently be removed from service. The said order was passed on 27th August, 1995.
3. The appellant raised a dispute, which was referred to on the following terms of reference:
Whether the removal of Sh. Ramesh Chand from services is illegal and/or unjustified by the management, and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect.
4. The Labour Court framed issues and on consideration of evidence by a reasoned order held that charges levelled against the appellant stand proved and that the appellant did not deserve any leniency and that the punishment of removal awarded to him is legal and justified.
5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the appellant filed a writ petition in this Court. The stand taken by the appellant in the said writ petition was that the findings of the Inquiry Officer and Disciplinary authority were perverse as according to him none of the witnesses produced had indicted him and establish that theft was committed by the appellant. In order to appreciate the said contention, the learned Single Judge examined statement of the witnesses and on consideration of the same found that the first witness Mr. Sukhbir Singh had categorically stated in the night on 27.8.1991 that the appellant was carrying the drum of Mobil oil and that with the said drum, he went up to the Jhuggi when Mr. Sukhbir Singh called out. We have also examined statement of Mr. Sukhbir Singh and agree with the learned Single Judge. Statements of others like Mr. Tika Ram and Mr. Bharat Kumar prove and establish the charge of theft. We also agree with the learned Single Judge that if one charge of theft is proved, action of removal from service is justified.
6. The next ground taken was that the appellant was not provided help of a co-worker. The aforesaid stand was however, found to be belied of the fact that the note of the inquiry officer clearly pointed out that such assistance was being provided to him, which was also accepted by the appellant by putting his signature below the proceeding dated 28.4.1992.
7. The Labour Court on appreciation of the evidence on record has come to a definite finding that the appellant is guilty of the charge of theft. We have examined statements of the witnesses to which our attention was drawn by the learned Counsel for the appellant. A bare perusal of the aforesaid statements would show that the petitioner was caught red handed while taking away 15 ltrs. mobil oil. Although he was acquitted in the criminal case, the same would not amount to his exoneration in the departmental proceedings, inasmuch as the standard of proof in criminal case is completely different than that in the departmental proceeding. In a criminal proceeding, to secure punishment, charge has to be proved beyond any reasonable doubt, whereas in any departmental proceeding, a charge is to be proved on the principle of preponderance of probabilities. Evidence Act is not applicable to departmental proceedings. Nature, object and purpose of the two proceedings is entirely different. Mere acquittal in the criminal proceedings would not in any manner absolve the appellant from the departmental proceeding, which was initiated against him. Statements of the witnesses have been referred to earlier. The Inquiry Officer found him guilty of the charges. The said evidence was appreciated by the Labour Court, which came to the conclusion that such findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer are correct, and justified. While exercising writ jurisdiction, we are not inclined to re-appreciate the evidence as an appellate authority to give a different finding.
8. The appeal has no merit and the same is dismissed.
