Delhi High Court
Mahender Pal vs Delhi Transport Corporation on 5 May, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: May 05, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 2914/2007
MAHENDER PAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ravindra S. Garia, Advocate
versus
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Manisha Tyagi, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% ORAL
Impugned Award of 11th July, 2006 holds that petitioner's removal
from service is legal and justified. It is noted in the impugned Award that
petitioner was employed as a Conductor by respondent on 22nd June,
1985 and was issued charge-sheet on 15th December, 1992 on the
allegation that on 23rd November, 1992 while he was on duty, he had not
issued tickets to a group of five passengers and when the bus was
intercepted by the Checking Team, then only, petitioner had started
issuing tickets on seeing the Checking Team. In the Departmental
Inquiry, three members of the Checking Team had deposed that five
passengers in the bus in question were found without tickets and when
petitioner was confronted about it, petitioner admitted his guilt. On the
basis of Inquiry Report, petitioner's service stood terminated. Before trial
court, Mr. B.P. Nigam (MW1) had deposed about the Inquiry conducted
and petitioner had also deposed before trial court. On the basis of
evidence led, trial court has returned the finding that the Inquiry
conducted against petitioner was fair and his service has been legally
terminated.
The challenge to impugned Award by learned counsel for
petitioner is on the ground that departmental Inquiry was not fairly
conducted because intimation of the Inquiry was given to petitioner by
UPC, which was not received by him and despite being on duty, he was
not orally informed about the Inquiry and when on the next date of
hearing, he had appeared, the evidence was already recorded and that the
evidence recorded was not supplied to him and he was not allowed to
cross-examine the witnesses.
Regarding the termination of petitioner's service, it is submitted by
learned counsel for petitioner that the charge-sheet issued was vague as it
merely states that the intention of petitioner was mala fide i.e. to steal.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the cash in the hands of
petitioner was not checked and so, there is no basis to hold that petitioner
had in any way cheated and no statement of passenger was recorded and
that the admission made by petitioner was not incriminatory as there was
no admission of guilt by petitioner. Lastly, it is submitted by petitioner's
counsel that the so-called admission of petitioner is self-explanatory and
it does not in any way implicate petitioner and so, the penalty imposed
deserves to be set aside and petitioner ought to be reinstated in service
with consequential benefits.
On the contrary, learned counsel for respondent supports the
impugned Award and submits that in view of petitioner's admission of
guilt, termination of his service is justified and that the past service record
of petitioner justifies the penalty awarded to him and so, this petition
deserves to be dismissed.
Nothing else is urged on behalf of either side.
Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned Award and the evidence
on record, I find that there is nothing on record to suggest that petitioner
had filed any application for seeking permission to cross-examine the
witnesses (whose evidence was recorded on earlier date) before Inquiry
Officer on the next date of hearing. There is no material on record on the
basis of which, it can be said that petitioner was not allowed to cross-
examine the witnesses.
If a notice for appearance is sent under Postal Cover by UPC, then
there is a presumption of service unless it is shown that the address at
which it is sent is incorrect. So, there is no basis to conclude that the
Inquiry conducted against petitioner is vitiated. So far as the stand of
petitioner's admission of guilt is concerned, I find that petitioner's
version of passengers in question refusing to take bus tickets and of his
informing the Checking Team at the next stop, does not incriminate
petitioner. So, on the basis of petitioner's so-called admission, the order
terminating his service cannot be justified as the so-called admission
made by petitioner, is not self-incriminating. However, I find that
evidence recorded during the Departmental Inquiry clearly proves that
petitioner was found to be sitting with ticketless passengers in question
by the Checking Team and when the said passengers had informed the
Checking Team that petitioner had not issued the tickets to them, then
petitioner had simply admitted his fault and thereafter had issued
unpunched tickets to the Checking Team, who then handed over those
tickets to ticketless passengers and had collected the fare from them. In
such a situation, non-checking of cash in hands of petitioner is of no
consequence. It is not shown as to what was the prejudice caused to
petitioner on account of so-called vagueness of the charge levelled
against him in the Inquiry, as he was well aware of the case set up against
him in the departmental proceedings.
Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that passengers seldom
come forward to depose in such department proceedings. The version of
petitioner regarding passengers refusing to take the tickets is highly
improbable and unacceptable in view of reliable version of the Checking
Team. It is pertinent to note that petitioner has nowhere disputed that he
was found sitting with the ticketless passengers in the bus, when the
Checking Team had boarded the bus in question. Considering the past
record of petitioner, this Court finds that the penalty inflicted upon
petitioner is amply justified and that impugned Award does not suffer
from any error apparent on the face of record.
Consequently, this petition is dismissed while leaving the parties to
bear their own costs.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MAY 05, 2017
s
