Delhi High Court
Delhi Transport Corporation vs Shri Sem Pal Conductor B No. 23147 on 13 October, 2009
Author: S.N. Aggarwal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C.) No. 3083/2007
% Date of Decision: 13th October, 2009
# DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ..... PETITIONER
! Through: Mr. Sumeet Pushkarna, Advocate.
VERSUS
$ SHRI SEM PAL, CONDUCTOR, B. NO. 23147 ....RESPONDENT
^ Through: NEMO.
CORAM:
Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL
1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see
the judgment? NO
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest? NO
S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)
The respondent is ex-parte as per order dated 29.09.2008.
2. Ex-parte arguments in the petition heard.
3. The management of Delhi Transport Corporation, in this writ
petition seeks to challenge an industrial award in I.D. No. 93/2003
substituting the punishment of stoppage of four increments with
cumulative effect imposed upon the respondent workman with the
punishment of stoppage of only one increment and that too, without
cumulative effect and directions to the petitioner management to refund
the amount of three increments to the respondent workman within a
period of three months failing which to pay the said amount with interest
at 12% per annum.
4. The respondent workman was employed as Conductor with the
petitioner and he was charge-sheeted in the year 1994 for non-issuance
of tickets to the passengers of one party while on duty on 06.08.1994.
The charge was proved against the respondent workman in the domestic
inquiry held against him and the management of the petitioner decided
to impose punishment of stoppage of four increments with cumulative
effect against him for this misconduct. The respondent aggrieved by the
said punishment imposed on him, raised an industrial dispute which was
referred by the appropriate Government in the Government of NCT of
Delhi for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal vide its
award dated 17.08.2005 in I.D. No. 93/2003 has set aside the punishment
of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect imposed upon the
respondent and substituted the same with the punishment of stoppage of
only one increment. It was found by the Tribunal that the domestic
inquiry was held against the respondent in conformity with the principles
of natural justice and it was further held that the misconduct of non-
issuance of tickets by the respondent to the passengers also stands
proved against him. The relevant portion of the impugned award is
extracted below:
"It is an admitted fact that the workman was working as
Conductor on 06.08.1994 and the allegation against him is of
non-issuance of tickets to the passengers of one party. The
facts and evidence on record indicate that the workman had not
issued the tickets to the passengers which amounts to
misconduct on the part of the workman. Looking into the facts &
circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the workman who is
working as Conductor and getting a meager salary, stoppage of
four increments with cumulative effect could ruin his family life
and future of his children, therefore, punishment of stoppage of
one increment is enough to give him a lesson. Consequently,
the management is directed to refund the amount of three
increments within a period of three months failing which the
workman is entitled to claim the same with interest @ 12% p.a.
from the management. The reference is answered accordingly.
Award is passed accordingly."
5. Mr. Sumeet Pushkarna, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner, has referred to a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in V.
Ramana Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, AIR
2005 SCC 3417, and on the strength of this judgment he has contended
that the impugned award substituting the penalty of stoppage of four
increments with cumulative effect with a penalty of stoppage of one
increment, suffers from grave perversity because according to him, it was
not open for the Tribunal to interfere with the administrative discretion
exercised by the petitioner in the matter of award of punishment on the
basis of misconduct proved against the respondent workman. In V.
Ramana's case (supra) relied upon by the petitioner's counsel, it was
observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:
" It is the responsibility of the conductors to collect correct fare
charges from the passengers and deposit the same with the
Corporation. They act in fiduciary capacity and it would be a
case of gross misconduct if they do not collect any fare or the
correct amount of fare. A conductor holds a post of trust. A
person guilty of breach of trust should be imposed punishment
of removal from service. The factual position shows that the
appellant's conduct in collecting fare at the designated place
and not collecting fare from persons who had already travelled
were in violation of various Regulations contained in The Andhra
Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Conduct)
Regulations, 1963 (in short 'Regulations'). In the Karnataka State
Road Transport case (supra) it was held that it is misplaced
sympathy by Courts in awarding lesser punishments where on
checking it is found that the Bus Conductors have either not
issued tickets to a large number of passengers, though they
should have, or have issued tickets of a lower denomination
knowing fully well the correct fare to be charged. It was finally
held that the order of dismissal should not have been set aside.
The view was reiterated by a three Judge Bench in Regional
Manager, RSRTC v. Ghanshyam Sharma (2002 (1) LLJ 234),
where it was additionally observed that the proved acts amount
either to a case of dishonesty or of gross negligence, and Bus
Conductors who by their actions or inactions cause financial loss
to the Corporations are not fit to be retained in service. "
6. Para 12 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V.
Ramana's case (supra) is also relevant and is extracted below:
"The common thread running through in all these decisions is
that the Court should not interfere with the administrator's
decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural
impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the Court, in
the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. In
view of what has been stated in the Wednesbury's case (supra)
the Court would not go into the correctness of the choice made
by the administrator open to him and the Court should not
substitute its decision to that of the administrator. The scope of
judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision-making
process and not the decision."
7. The facts in V. Ramana's case (supra) are almost identical to the
facts of the present case. In that case also a Conductor was charge-
sheeted for non-issuance of tickets to the passengers and in that case
after the charge of non-issuance was proved against him, he was
removed from the service of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport
Corporation. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V. Ramana's
case (supra) that the removal of the Conductor from service for non-
issuance of tickets, was justified and the said punishment could not have
been interfered by the Labour Court or by the High Court.
8. In the present case, the charge of non-issuance of tickets to the
passengers has been proved against the respondent workman and there
is a finding of fact in this regard contained in the impugned award which
has not been assailed by the workman in any proceedings before a
higher Court. Though, the charge of non-issuance of tickets against the
respondent was proved but despite that the petitioner in its wisdom
chose only to impose punishment of stoppage of four increments with
cumulative effect in stead of passing an order for his removal from its
service. The cases cannot be decided on the basis of misplaced
sympathy. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
V. Ramana's case referred above, the impugned award cannot stand the
test of judicial scrutiny. I have no hesitation in saying that the said award
suffers from perversity and is, therefore, liable to be set aside.
9. In view of the foregoing, the impugned award is hereby set aside.
This writ petition is allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
OCTOBER 13, 2009 S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'BSR'
