Shri Prem Singh vs Delhi Transport Corporation
2009 Latest Caselaw 2548 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                  W.P.(C) No. 9254/2009

%                       Date of Decision: 09 July, 2009


# Shri Prem Singh
                                                         ..... Petitioner
!                  Through: Mr. G.S. Charya, Advocate


                                VERSUS


$ Delhi Transport Corporation
                                                   .....RESPONDENT

^                  Through: Mr. Saurabh Chadha, proxy counsel


CORAM:
Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL

1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? YES

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?YES

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?YES

S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL) This writ petition filed by the workman (petitioner herein) is

directed against the order dated 04.04.2007 on inquiry issue and award

dated 06.07.2007 passed by Ms. Nisha Saxena, Presiding Officer, Labour

Court XXI, Fast Track, Delhi rejecting his claim for reinstatement and

back wages.

2. The petitioner was appointed as a conductor with Delhi Transport

Corporation (respondent herein) on 01.01.1972. While he was working as

conductor with Delhi Transport Corporation, he was apprehended 9 times

and was charge sheeted for non-issuance of ticket to the passengers. He

was caught for the tenth time on 22.03.1992 when he was deployed for

duty on Delhi-Panipat ruote at the time the bus was checked by checking

staff at 7:20 AM and the petitioner was found not having issued tickets of

Rs. 14.50 to one passenger travelling in the bus. He was charge sheeted

on 02.04.1992 for misconduct under Clause 19(b), (h) & (m) of the

Standing Orders for not issuing ticket of Rs. 14.50 to one passenger when

he was on duty on Delhi-Panipat route on 22.03.1992. The charge sheet

is at page 15 of the Paper Book. It was mentioned in the charge sheet

that the past conduct of the petitioner will also be taken into account.

The inquiry into the charges was held against the petitioner and the

Inquiry Officer found him guilty of the charges levelled against him in the

charge sheet dated 02.04.1992 referred above. The Disciplinary

Authority of the respondent after considering the Inquiry Report and

other relevant material decided to remove the petitioner from service

and accordingly he was removed from service of Delhi Transport

Corporation w.e.f. 02.06.1995.

3. Aggrieved by his removal, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute

which was referred by the appropriate Government for adjudication to

the Labour Court. The Labour Court after considering the evidence

produced by the parties before it vide its order dated 04.04.2007 decided

the inquiry issue against the petitioner and held that the inquiry is not

vitiated for non-observance of principles of natural justice. Thereafter,

vide award dated 06.07.2007, assailed in the present writ petition, the

Labour Court held that the removal of the petitioner from service of Delhi

Transport Corporation was on account of proved misconduct against him

which was of grave nature. The disciplinary authority as well as the

Labour Court have also taken into account the past conduct of the

petitioner while upholding his removal from service.

4. There were 15 adverse entries in the service record of the

petitioner out of which 9 related to non-issuance of tickets by him to the

passengers on earlier occasions. The punishment of reduction of his pay

was also imposed on him on two earlier occasions, on one occasion his

two increments were forfeited and on the other occasion, one increment

was forfeited. These two punishments imposed upon the petitioner

relate to the incidents of 18.10.1983 and 24.02.1986 respectively when

also, he was caught by the checking staff for not issuing tickets to the

passengers. The petitioner was even suspended from service at the time

he was caught by the checking staff on 18.10.1983 for not issuing tickets

to the passengers. However, the suspension was later on revoked and he

was taken back on duty after inflicting punishment of stoppage of two

increments of him with regard to the incident of 18.10.1983. This did not

deter the petitioner and he continued with his designs in defrauding the

respondent Corporation by pocketing the money collected by him from

the passengers and not issuing ticket to them. The fact of 15 adverse

entries in the service record of the petitioner in the past is not denied by

the petitioner in the writ petition. His past conduct coupled with his

involvement in the current incident of 22.03.1992 shows that the

petitioner was indulging in corrupt practices and for that reason, his

removal from service of DTC, which is a public utility department, is fully

justified. The corrupt people have no legal right to remain in public

employment. They have to be dealt with iron hands.

5. Having regard to the facts of the case that are borne out from the

record, I do not find any substance in the argument of Mr. Charya that

the report of the Inquiry Officer is perverse. In my opinion, the impugned

award is a well-reasoned award and does not call for any interference by

this Court in exercise of its extra-ordinary discretionary writ jurisdiction

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition

which fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.

JULY 09, 2009                                    S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'ma'