Delhi High Court
D.T.C. vs Ram Karan on 29 January, 2013
Author: Mukta Gupta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 12956/2005
% Reserved on: 26th November, 2012
Decided on: 29th January, 2013
D.T.C. ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Arati Mahajan Shedha, Advocate.
versus
RAM KARAN ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. K.B. Hina, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
1. By the present petition the Petitioner challenges the orders dated 18th
March, 2004 whereby the enquiry conducted by the Petitioner was held to be
not in accordance with the principles of natural justice and 13th April, 2005
whereby the application of the Petitioner under Section 33 (2) (b) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short „the ID Act‟) was rejected and the
Respondent was directed to be reinstated with all consequential benefits to
the extent of 50% taking into consideration the time that has elapsed and
there was no evidence led by the workman that he remained unemployed
throughout the proceedings.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset does not challenge the
order dated 18th March, 2004 whereby the preliminary issue whether the
inquiry was just and fair was held against it as no inquiry report was
exhibited before the Court nor the Enquiry Officer was examined before the
Tribunal. The contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that in
the evidence led before the Tribunal the Management was not required to
produce the passenger witness and it had led sufficient evidence in the form
of Shri Layak Ram AW2 and Rakha Ram AW3 the members of the raiding
party. It is contended that the scope for interference by the Tribunal is
limited and only if there is no evidence it can set aside the finding of the
enquiry however, the Tribunal cannot go into the sufficiency of the evidence.
The learned Tribunal erred in coming to the conclusion that the passenger
was not examined in view of the decisions in State of Haryana and another
vs. Rattan Singh, 1977 (2) SCC 491 and Delhi Transport Corporation vs.
N.L. Kakkar and another, 110 (2004) DLT 493. Reliance is also placed on
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. B.S. Hullikatti, JT 2001 (2)
SC 72 to contend that short charging of the fair is a serious misconduct. The
evidence proved by the Petitioner was logically probative and thus the
dismissal of the Respondent could not have been interfered with.
3. Learned counsel for the Respondent on the other hand relies upon the
cross-examination of the witness. It is stated that it is a case of no evidence
against the Respondent and thus the Tribunal committed no error in setting
aside the dismissal and directing reinstatement with 50% back wages with
consequential benefits to the Respondent.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. Briefly the facts of the case are that the Respondent was appointed as
a Conductor on 15th January, 1992 with the Petitioner Corporation. On 20th
January, 1992 the checking staff conducted checking on the bus No. 9496 of
Route No. 523 wherein the Petitioner was the conductor. It was found that
one passenger who was travelling from Andheria Mor to Mehrauli actually
paid Rs. 1 but the Respondent issued him an already sold ticket of Rs.2 of
the same trip. The checking officials prepared the challan, the copy of the
complaint, statement of passenger, tickets etc. and a charge sheet was issued
to the Respondent. Not satisfied by the reply to the charge sheet an enquiry
was conducted and the Inquiry Officer held that the charges against the
Respondent were proved. Thus the Respondent was issued a show cause
notice calling upon him to show cause as to why he be not removed from the
service. After receiving the reply, the Respondent was removed from the
service on 16th October, 1992. An application under Section 33 (2) (b) of the
ID Act was filed before the Tribunal for seeking approval of the order of
dismissal. After pleadings of the parties, the preliminary issue regarding
validity of the enquiry was decided against the Petitioner on 18th March,
2004 as neither the enquiry report was exhibited nor the Enquiry Officer was
examined. Though there is a prayer to set aside this order however, during
the arguments there is no challenge to this order.
6. After the preliminary issue of enquiry was decided against the
Petitioner, it led evidence. Learned Tribunal relied on the cross-examination
of AW2 Layak Ram, who admitted that the disputed ticket was issued in the
process of the same trip. The cross-examination of Shri Layak Ram AW2 is
reproduced as under:
"It is correct that the disputed ticket was issued in the process
of the same trip. I did not record the statement of the
passenger. I can tell after seeing the statement as to who
recorded it. I cannot identify as to in whose handwriting the
statement of the passenger recorded is. It is incorrect that no
such statement like Ex. AW-3/1 was made by Nisar Ahmed."
7. A perusal of the testimony of witnesses shows that this was first ticket
sold by the Conductor after the bus had started from Bhati Mines to one
Nisar Ahmad. The ticket was of Rs. 2 though the passenger gave currency
note of Rs. 5/- out of which the Conductor returned him Rs. 4/-. A perusal
of the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of Shri Rakha Ram AW3
the member of the raiding team itself shows that the Respondent did not over
charge nor gave the old ticket but charged less amount. Faced with this
situation, the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that even
short charging is a misconduct. However, this was not the charge against the
Respondent. The Petitioner cannot now built up a new case on which neither
the charge sheet was issued nor proceedings carried out. Having gone
through the testimony of the two witnesses Shri Layak Ram AW2 and Rakha
Ram AW3 and the reasons assigned by the learned Tribunal, this Court
cannot come to the conclusion that the inference drawn by the learned
Tribunal was not a plausible inference. That being the position, no
interference is called for by this Court.
8. Petition is dismissed.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
JANUARY 29, 2013
'vn'
