Shri Kishori Lal vs M/S Delhi Transport Corporation
2009 Latest Caselaw 2024 Del

*            THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                   Writ Petition (Civil) No. 779/2009

                                         Date of Decision : 13.5.2009

Shri Kishori Lal                                ...... Petitioner
                           Through : Mr. Nathu Ram, Advocate.
                                 Versus

M/s Delhi Transport Corporation            ...... Respondent
                    Through : Ms. Arati Mahajan, Advocate.


CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

1.    Whether Reporters of local papers 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

V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral)

1. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the

learned counsel for the respondent who has appeared in response to the

advance copy having been served.

2. The petitioner in the instant case has challenged the award dated

9th July, 2008 passed by Learned Labour Court in ID No. 82/06/97 in

case titled Shri Kishore Lal Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation. By virtue of

which not only the domestic inquiry which was held against the

petitioner/workman by the respondent/management was held to be valid,

legal and fair but even the imposition of punishment of removal was also

held to be not disproportionate to the proved misconduct against the

petitioner/workman.

3. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned award

has assailed the same by way of the present writ petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has confined the challenge

the impugned award as well as to the order dated 5th February, 1996 only

on the quantum of punishment.

5. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

quantum of punishment which has been imposed on the petitioner is

disproportionate to the proved misconduct in as much as the petitioner

had rendered 18 years of unblemished service while as on account of the

alleged misconduct of not having issued tickets to three passengers in the

instant case has been considered to sufficient to visit him with the

punishment of removal.

6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel as

well as perused the award dated 9th July, 2008.

7. The fact of the case are not in dispute according to the

petitioner/workman was held to be guilty in a domestic inquiry for not

having issued tickets to three of the passengers while he was on duty on

Bus No. 9899 route from Nalagarh to Delhi. The date of incident was

21st October, 1994. On the basis of the aforesaid proved misconduct, the

disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of removal. It seems that

the petitioner did not succeed in the departmental appeal which

ultimately culminated into the adjudication by the learned Labour Court

with regard to the fairness of the domestic inquiry as well as the quantum

of punishment. The learned Labour Court has passed a detailed and

reasoned award and taken note of the three cases of the Apex Court in

similar circumstances where the Conductor of a road transport

corporation who has been found to be guilty of having collected the money

for issuance of ticket and not issued the tickets, he has been visited with

the punishment of removal/dismissal. In these cases, the Apex Court

has observed that it is not the quantum of money which is collected by

the Conductor but it is the question of trust which is breached by the

said delinquent employee. These cases are:

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. B.S. Hullikatti 2001(I) LLJ 740 SC

Regional Manager, R.S.R.T.C. Vs. Ghanshyam Sharma 2002 (I) LLJ 264

UPSRTC Vs. Ram Kishan Arora 2007 V SLT 252

8. While imposing this punishment of removal in the instant case the

disciplinary authority has taken into consideration the past service record

of the petitioner whereupon it has been observed that for similar incidents

in the past the petitioner has been also visited with major penalty of

stoppage of increment with cumulative effect.

9. One of the contentions of the authorized representative of the

petitioner/workman before the learned Tribunal has been that since the

past service record was not proved in accordance with law, therefore, it

was not proper for the disciplinary authority or for that matter the

learned Labour Court to have justified the imposition of punishment of

removal on the petitioner on taking into consideration the past record.

10. The learned Labour Court accepted this plea and observed that

even if the past record is not taken into consideration even then the

Conductor functions in the fiduciary capacity for the Road Transport

Corporation, and therefore, it is expected of him to maintain a very high

standard of integrity and uprightness which the petitioner has been found

to be wanting, and therefore, as observed that the punishment which has

been imposed on the petitioner cannot be said to be disproportionate

warranting any interference.

11. The learned Labour Court has also referred two other judgments

where the High Court in somewhat similar circumstance of breach of

trust had reduced the punishment to stoppage of increment with

cumulative effect in place of penalty of removal or dismissal that the Apex

Court enhanced the punishment to its original position by observing that

the High Court was not justified in reducing the punishment as the

charges leveled against the petitioner were very grave.

12. Keeping in view the detailed analysis and critical consideration

given by the learned Labour Court and the legal position as in existence

the quantum of money involved hardly should make any difference in the

imposition of punishment because in such cases it is not the question of

money involved but it is a question of breach of trust, breach of faith

which the employer has placed implicitly in its employee and to continue

with such a employee will only embolden him to indulge in such activities

for future.

13. This Court feels that the punishment of removal which was

imposed on the petitioner keeping in view the proved misconduct can by

no stretch of parameters or reasoning be said to be disproportionate

which may warrant setting aside the same and imposing a lesser

punishment or warranting the matter remanded back to the disciplinary

authority for consideration of punishment afresh.

14. For the foregoing reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is

without any merit, and accordingly, dismissed.

No order as to costs.

V.K. SHALI, J.

MAY 13, 2009 KP