Delhi Transport Corporation vs Satpal
2011 Latest Caselaw 4692 Del

*         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                             LPA 774/2011

%                        Date of Decision: September 22, 2011

Delhi Transport Corporation                   ....Petitioner
                 Through Mr. Manish Garg and Mr. S.L. Sain,
                 Advocates.

                 VERSUS

Satpal                                             .....Respondent
                 Through Nemo.

CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

                              ORDER

SANJIV KHANNA, J.:

CM No. 17755/2011 (for condonation of Delay) and LPA No. 774/2011

This is an application for condonation of delay of 15 days in

preferring the appeal.

2. Before issuing notice on the application for condonation of

delay, we have thought it apt to deal with the matter on merits.

3. Delhi Transport Corporation has filed the present intra

court appeal assailing the order dated 8th July, 2011, dismissing

their writ petition and upholding the award of the Labour Court

dated 1st November, 2010. The Labour Court has set aside the

removal of the respondent conductor and directed reinstatement

of the respondent with continuity of service. It has further

directed that the respondent would be paid a lump sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- towards back wages.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that

the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge have mis-

appreciated the evidence and in fact the respondent had

interpolated the records while serving as a conductor in respect of

the bus trip from Delhi to Hardwar. It is submitted that the

tickets were issued from Delhi to Hardwar but the record was

interpolated as tickets were shown as issued from Delhi to Meerut

and thus the respondent had committed fraud resulting in

financial loss to the appellant. The respondent had embezzled

fare which was paid by the passengers.

5. The allegation relates to 31st July/1st August, 1993. There

were four charges/allegations against the respondent. The

enquiry officer has, however, found that the tickets from serial no.

624-29910 to 29919 which were torn more than required, were

issued by some other conductor and, therefore, the enquiry officer

gave benefit of doubt to the respondent. Another allegation

leveled against the respondent was that he had torn half counter

foil of tickets as if the same were issued for journey from Delhi to

Meerut but in fact these were issued for Delhi to Hardwar.

6. The enquiry officer has recorded that during question-

answer the respondent was seen satisfied with the answers given

to his questions. This by no stretch can be treated as evidence or

material against the respondent. Passengers were not examined

and have not given any statement against the respondent. The

charge was sustained only on the ground that the ticket

counterfoil was torn and had overwriting. Ticket had to be torn

and given to the passenger and what remained with the Conductor

was the counterfoil. The respondent in his statement had stated

that he had made tickets for Delhi to Hapur but due to change of

duty he had to change the ticket from Delhi to Meerut. The

change of duty is admitted but the enquiry officer held that the

reply did not appear to be proper and the respondent was not

required to tear the tickets counterfoils which were already half

torn as tickets were issued. The enquiry officer had further held

that if due to change in the route and the respondent/conductor

was required to further tear the already half torn ticket or change

them, he should have taken written permission of the higher

officers. This is not material or evidence which establishes the

charge of fraud and embezzlement justifying the serious penalty of

removal. Failure to take approval of seniors is different and

cannot be equated with the charge of fraud/embezzlement.

7. The Labour Court examined the evidence including the

statement of the witness of the appellant management MW2 Tara

Chand, who had examined the documents and after examination

had made the complaint with regard to the interpolation of

record. His statement before the labour court has been

thoroughly scrutinized and considered. He accepted the

contention of the respondent conductor that bus No. 9403 had

broken down. The passengers who had been issued tickets had to

be again issued tickets in the substitute bus as a result counter

foils of the tickets had to be torn. The labour court observed the

evidence against the respondent conductor far too sketchy. There

was no evidence or material of credence. The action of the

management was based on mere suspicion.

8. It may be noted that the respondent conductor was

appointed in 1978 and had worked till 1993 and in the meanwhile

he has retired. Labour Court has considered all aspects and has

directed reinstatement but did not grant full back wages.

9. In view of the aforesaid, there is no justification to issue

notice on the application for limitation and, accordingly, the

application for limitation stands rejected and as an evitable

corollary, the appeal also stands dismissed in limine.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

CHIEF JUSTICE September 22, 2011 Kkb/VKR