Shri Mahinder Pal vs Delhi Transport Corporation And ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 2830 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                    +    W.P.(C.) No. 10355/2009

%                  Date of Decision: 24th July, 2009


# SH. MAHINDER PAL                        ..... PETITIONER
!            Through: Mr. Kishore Kumar Patel, Advocate.

                                 VERSUS

$ DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANOTHER .....RESPONDENTS

^ Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat with Ms. Latika Choudhary, Advocates.

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 an award dated 25.01.2008 passed by Ms. Nisha

Saxena, Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Fast Track-XXI, Delhi rejecting

his claim for reinstatement or back wages.

Heard.

Briefly stated the facts of the case relevant for the disposal of this

writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a Conductor with

Delhi Transport Corporation (D.T.C.) on 01.08.1983. On 16.09.1993

around 17:45 hours, he was on duty in Bus No. 9870 on inter-State route

from Delhi to Chhutmulpur. The checking staff checked the bus at Gagal

Hedi and found a group of 3 passengers which was traveling from

Shaharanpur to Gagal Hedi was not issued any tickets though the

petitioner had collected fare of Rs. 5/- from each of them. The

passengers found traveling without tickets were checked by the checking

staff while they were deboarding the bus at Gagal Hedi.

The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated 08.10.1993 in

regard to above-mentioned violation and misconduct on his part under

para 19 (a), (b), (c), (f), and (h) of the Standing Orders applicable to

D.T.C. Employees. A domestic inquiry was held against the delinquent

petitioner in which he was found guilty of the charges attributed to him.

The Disciplinary Authority on the basis of the Inquiry Report and the

other material relating to his past conduct decided to remove the

petitioner from service and accordingly, he was removed from the service

of the D.T.C. w.e.f. 27.10.1994.

The petitioner aggrieved by his removal from the service of the

respondent raised an industrial dispute which was referred by the

appropriate Government for adjudication to the Labour Court. The

Labour Court vide its order dated 04.01.2008 decided the inquiry issue in

favour of the management and against the workman. The order dated

04.01.2008 on inquiry issued passed by the Industrial Adjudicator is at

pages 83 to 89 of the Paper Book and the same has been perused by me.

The Court below has given cogent reasons in its order dated 04.01.2008

to hold that the domestic inquiry held against the petitioner was in

conformity with the principles of natural justice.

A reading of order dated 04.01.2008 on inquiry issue would show

that adequate opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend the

charges against him. It is also borne out from the order on inquiry issue

dated 04.01.2008 that all documents relied upon by the management

against the petitioner were supplied to him and he had cross-examined

all the three witnesses examined by the management in the course of

domestic inquiry. Hence, I do not find any merit in the argument of the

petitioner's counsel that opportunity to defend the case was not given to

the petitioner in the course of domestic inquiry.

The Industrial Adjudicator vide its impugned award dated

25.01.2008, taking note of the precedents referred in the said award and

also the past service record of the petitioner, found that the penalty of

removal from service imposed by the management by no means is

disproportionate to the mis-conduct proved against the petitioner.

Mr. Patel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has

placed reliance on Regulation 15-A of Delhi Road Transport Authority

(Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1952 and relying

on the said regulation, he has argued that the alleged mis-conduct on the

part of the petitioner is protected as the shortage noticed by the

checking staff was only to the tune of Rs. 15/-. According to the learned

counsel for the petitioner, the Court below did not took notice of

Regulation 15-A referred above and, therefore, the impugned award is

liable to be set aside.

I have gone through Regulation 15-A of Delhi Road Transport

Authority (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1952

which is extracted by the petitioner at page 4 in the writ petition but on

going through the same, I do not find that the said Regulation has any

applicability to the mis-conduct proved against the petitioner.

It shall be significant to mention here that the Disciplinary Authority

as well as the Industrial Adjudicator, has taken into account eight earlier

adverse entries in the service record of the petitioner which all related to

similar types of mis-conduct. The petitioner was punished on two earlier

occasions, first time his one increment was stopped and second time

penalty of stoppage of two increments was passed against him. The

penalty imposed on the petitioner on two earlier occasions did not deter

him from not issuing tickets to the passengers after collecting fare from

them. There are any number of judgments in which it has been held that

when a charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and

integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to

deal with the matter leniently. Mis-conduct in such cases has to be dealt

with iron hands. Where the person deals with public money or is

engaged in financial transactions or acts in a fiduciary capacity, the

highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness is a must and

unexceptionable. The petitioner has defied all norms and his retention in

service of D.T.C. will not be in the public interest.

For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any infirmity, illegality or

perversity in the impugned award calling for an interference by this Court

in exercise of its extraordinary discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article

226 of the Constitution. This writ petition, therefore, fails and is hereby

dismissed in limine.

JULY 24, 2009                                      S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'bsr'