Mehtab Singh vs Delhi Transport Corporation
2014 Latest Caselaw 1062 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                             Decided on February 26, 2014


+                             W.P.(C) 1291/2014
MEHTAB SINGH                                                  ..... Petitioner

                     Represented by:      Mr.Deepak Vohra, Advocate

                     versus

DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION                                  ..... Respondent

                     Represented by:      Mr.Latika Chaudhury, Advocate

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO
V.KAMESWAR RAO, J. (Oral)

CM No. 2693/2014 (exemption)

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 1291/2014

1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the award dated May 14, 2014 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in I.D. No. 16/11, whereby the Industrial Tribunal has not granted any relief to the petitioner herein.

2. The brief facts are, the petitioner, who was working as a Driver with the respondent-Corporation was charge sheeted vide order dated July 30, 2004, wherein it was alleged that he started a bus from Keshavpur Depot at 1.30 p.m.; took CNG from Hari Nagar Depot and

then started trip from Uttam Nagar Termination at 2.30 p.m. and reached Faridabad at 4.15 p.m., whereas the time for reaching there was 5.05 p.m. It is stated that thereafter, the petitioner started a trip from Faridabad at 4.25 p.m. and via Uttam Nagar Terminal; reached Keshavpur Depot at 6.50 p.m., whereas official time for reaching there was 8.50 p.m. Thus, by reaching 2 hours before time, he caused loss to the respondent-Corporation, which is a misconduct under the Rules.

3. The petitioner filed a reply to the charge sheet on August 18, 2004, stating that at Uttam Nagar Terminal, the Time Keeper immediately gave his time for Faridabad and thereafter, he proceeded after stopping bus at every bus stop and collecting passengers. He mentioned in his reply that many buses had already passed via Faridabad for Ballabhgarh and for this reason, his bus got lesser passengers. He also submitted in his reply that Time Keeper of Faridabad gave him earlier time for return trip to Delhi.

4. In the departmental enquiry, the charges against the petitioner stood proved and he was imposed a punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. It is this punishment which has been challenged by him, raising an Industrial Dispute before the Industrial Tribunal. The respondent-Corporation justified the punishment on the basis of the conclusion arrived at by the Enquiry Officer.

5. Four issues were framed by the Industrial Tribunal, which are as under:

1. Whether the present claim of the workman has been properly espoused by the Union? OPW

2. Whether management has violated the principles of natural justice while conducting enquiry against the workman? OPW

3. Whether the workman committed misconduct imputed to him by the management? OPM

4. As per terms of reference."

6. Insofar as the issue No. 2 is concerned, it is the conclusion of the Industrial Tribunal that the respondent-Corporation had not violated the principles of natural justice while conducting enquiry against the petitioner.

7. Since the issue No. 2 was decided against the petitioner, the issue No. 3 was treated as infructuous.

8. On the terms of reference, which was issue No. 4, the Industrial Tribunal justified the punishment imposed on the petitioner.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would urge, since the charge sheet against him stipulates that he, in connivance with the Conductor, has committed the misconduct, the Conductor was required to be called for in the enquiry by the Enquiry Officer, suo moto. He would further submit that even the Time Keeper, who had given him time for reaching the Faridabad, was also not produced and examined.

10. On a pointed query to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as to whether in the absence of Enquiry Officer calling the Conductor as a witness, did the petitioner made a request to the Enquiry Officer for producing him as a witness, the answer was in the negative. In other words, the petitioner had not made any request during the enquiry for producing the Conductor as a witness in the enquiry proceedings. Similar is the position insofar as the Time Keeper is concerned. No such request for calling him in the enquiry proceedings was made by the petitioner. No rule has been placed before me to show that such a power

exists with the Enquiry Officer. Even otherwise, nothing precluded the petitioner to call the Conductor as a witness. Since no request has been made by the petitioner for calling the Conductor and the Time Keeper as witnesses in the enquiry, he cannot put the onus on the Enquiry Officer. No such point was raised by the petitioner before the Industrial Tribunal. I note, the Industrial Tribunal has concluded in para 18 of the impugned award, as under:

"18. As stated above, vide award dated 13.3.13, enquiry conducted by the management against the workman has been held to be proper, meaning thereby the charges levelled against the workman stand proved. Hence, it is a clear case of carelessness on the part of the workman. The workman has been granted punishment of stoppage of next due one increment with cumulative effect. The punishment is not very serious one. Thus, in my considered opinion, the said punishment, is not, in any way, disproportionate to the misconduct committed by the workman. Hence, it is held that punishment of stoppage of next due on increment with cumulative effect imposed upon the workman Sh. Mehtab Singh by the management vide order no. KPD (AI (T)/CS-25/SCN./2005/3388 dated 19.10.2005 is not illegal and/or unjustified and thus, no directions are necessary in this respect. Award is passed accordingly and reference is answered in these terms".

11. I agree with the conclusion arrived at by the Industrial Tribunal. The charge against the petitioner is of very serious nature. Looking at the charge framed and the evidence which has come on record, the penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect, cannot be said to be very serious punishment. As no other point has been urged except the ones dealt above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition.

The same is dismissed.

CM No. 2692/2014 In view of the order passed in the writ petition, this application is dismissed as infructuous.

(V.KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE FEBRUARY 26, 2014 akb