Delhi High Court
Delhi Transport Corporation vs Sh. Pritam Singh on 16 July, 2012
Author: P.K.Bhasin
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% W.P. (C) 17515/2005
+ Date of Decision: 16th July, 2012
# Delhi Transport Corporation ....Petitioner
! Through: Mr. Anand Nandan, Advocate
Versus
$ Sh. Pritam Singh ...Respondent
Through: Mr. Raman Kapur, Sr.
Advocate with Mr. R.P. Singh
Advocate.
CORAM:
* HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN
JUDGMENT
P.K.BHASIN, J:
The petitioner-management by way of this writ petition
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has sought to
assail the award dated 18th September, 2004 passed by the
Labour Court whereby the punishment of removal from
service awarded to the respondent-workman, who was
employed as a conductor with the petitioner, for his having
committed misconduct of defrauding the petitioner by
misappropriating the amount of fare which had collected
from two passengers while performing his duty as conductor
on DTC bus and not issuing them the tickets, was held to be
illegal and the respondent was directed to be reinstated with
full back wages.
2. The facts of the case may briefly be stated. Respondent-
workman was employed as a conductor with the petitioner
DTC. The respondent workman was on duty on 30th June,
1995 as a conductor DTC bus plying on Delhi-Shamli route.
On the way the checking staff of DTC checked the
respondent's bus and found that two passengers were not
issued tickets. On enquiry they informed the checking staff
that they had paid the fare upto their destination to the
conductor, respondent herein, but he had not given them the
tickets. On these allegations the respondent-workman was
charge-sheeted on 19th, July, 1995. It was alleged that he had
in that way caused financial loss to the petitioner by
collecting full fare from two passengers without issuing them
the tickets in return. The respondent-workman filed his reply
to the charge-sheet in which he had taken the plea that he had
issued the tickets to the passengers but they had lost the
tickets and the passengers themselves had also told so to the
checking officials. Since the said reply of the respondent-
workman was found by the management to be unsatisfactory
a regular departmental enquiry was ordered. Enquiry
proceedings were initiated against the workman and the
enquiry officer came to the conclusion that the charges of
fraud, cheating and causing loss to the petitioner were not
made out but at the same time he was held negligent in
conducting his duties as he did not check the passengers
whether they were having tickets or not. The Disciplinary
Authority issued show cause notice dated 6th, March, 1996 to
the respondent workman to show cause as to why he should
not be removed from the services of the petitioner. The
respondent filed his reply to the show cause notice dated 18 th
March, 1996 in which he had claimed to be innocent. He
further stated that if the passengers had lost the tickets then
the checking officials should have imposed fine on the
passengers but nothing was done by them. Not satisfied with
the reply of the respondent-workman the Disciplinary
Authority ordered his removal from service on 19th March,
1996.
3. The respondent-workman raised an industrial dispute
against his illegal removal from service. The dispute came to
be referred for adjudication to the Labour Court.
4. The respondent-workman filed a statement of claim
before the Labour Court claiming his removal from service to
be illegal on the ground that the enquiry officer had
exonerated him of the charge of non-issuance of tickets to
two of the passengers after collecting money from them and
therefore, enquiry officer was not justified in holding him
guilty of negligence as that charge was never levelled against
him.
5. The petitioner-management filed its written statement
and refuted the allegations made by the respondent-workman
and claimed that he was removed from service since he had
committed a serious misconduct by not issuing tickets to two
passengers who were travelling in his bus although he had
collected the fare from them.
6. The learned Labour Court passed the award in favour of
the respondent-workman and directed his reinstatement.
7. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner-
DTC that the respondent was accorded full opportunity to
prove his innocence and that there had been no violation of
principles of natural justice in the enquiry and no fault could
be found with the decision of the enquiry officer that the
respondent-workman was guilty of negligence and the
decision of the Disciplinary Authority accepting that finding
and punishing him.
8. In my view, there is no merit in this petition. The charge
against the respondent-workman was that he had
misappropriated the fine collected from two passengers. That
issue was not established in the enquiry. It is not understood
as to how he could be held guilty of any negligence. In the
enquiry one passenger was examined by the management and
he had claimed that he and his brother had lost the tickets
which were given to them by the conductor. That statement
was accepted by the enquiry officer. So, there was no
question of respondent-workman being negligent. Thus, in
the background of the above facts and circumstances the
Labour Court was fully justified in coming to the conclusion
that the punishment of removal from its services awarded to
the respondent-workman by the petitioner-management was
illegal and arbitrary. This Court finds no good reason to
interfere with the impugned award.
9. This writ petition, therefore, being devoid of any merit
is dismissed but without any order as to costs.
P.K. BHASIN, J
JULY 16, 2012
