Delhi High Court
Roshan Lal Sharma vs Delhi Transport Corporation on 25 August, 2011
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA No. 689/2011
% Date of Decision: August 25, 2011
Roshan Lal Sharma ....Appellant
Through Mohd. Azam Ansari, Advocate.
VERSUS
Delhi Transport Corporation .....Respondent
Through Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
The appellant Roshan Lal Sharma has filed the present
intra court appeal assailing the decision dated 5th August, 2011,
passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing his writ petition
wherein he had challenged the award dated 6th September, 2007
passed by the Labour Court, Karkardooma.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that both
the industrial adjudicator and the Single Judge have erred in
holding that there was evidence or material that the appellant had
not issued tickets to the passengers. It is submitted that the
enquiry proceedings initiated by respondent Delhi Transport
Corporation were sham and there is no evidence whatsoever
against the appellant that he had received or collected due fare
and not issued tickets to the passengers. The cash was not
checked and the ticket block was not sealed. It is further
submitted that the appellant had an unblemished record from
1982 onwards and this factor has been ignored.
3. The appellant in 1982 was appointed as a Conductor and
was lastly posted at B.B.M. Depot-II. On 16th June, 1995, while on
duty on bus No. 9497, the checking staff on boarding the bus
found that six passengers had paid the full fare but had not been
issued tickets. The appellant refused to get cash checked and also
refused to accept the challan and sign on the statements made by
the passengers. He tried to harm himself and raised hue and cry
in the bus. Charge-sheet dated 3rd July, 1995 was issued and
enquiry proceedings were conducted and he was removed from
service on 13th March, 1997.
4. Proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, were
initiated and a reference was made whether removal of the
appellant was illegal and/or unjustified and if so, what relief the
appellant was entitled to. The appellant examined himself and
management relied upon the enquiry report. After examining the
evidence and material on record, the industrial adjudicator held
that the enquiry proceedings were conducted fairly and principles
of natural justice were followed. It was further held that there
was no perversity in the report of the enquiry officer. The enquiry
officer has taken into consideration the statements of the
passengers which were recorded by the checking staff. It is also
well settled that in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated
rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act do not apply. All
material which is logically probative for a prudent mind are
permissible. Hearsay evidence is permitted and can be relied
provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. The industrial
adjudicator does not act as a appellate forum while examining the
report of the enquiry officer in the domestic proceedings. An
industrial adjudicator can interfere when there is want of good
faith or unfair labour practice etc. on the part of the management.
5. It is the duty of the conductor to issue tickets to the
passengers and account for the fare collected from the passengers
to the management. If he is dishonest and collects fare but does
not issue tickets, he is guilty of serious misconduct. Further
gravity of misconduct cannot be minimized by the fact that he has
been caught for the first time for there is no guarantee that he had
not acted dishonestly in the past as well which went undetected.
Even one such conduct of dishonesty amounting to breach of faith
may invite serious punishment as held in Depot Manager,
A.P.S.R.T.C. vs. Swamy, (2007) 12 SCC 40.
6. Keeping in view the aforesaid position, we do not find any
merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed in limine.
No orders as to costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
CHIEF JUSTICE
August 25, 2011
kkb
