Delhi High Court
Suresh Kumar vs D.T.C. on 31 October, 2018
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 31st October, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 17655/2004
SURESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. N.D.Pancholi, Adv. with
Ms. Shalu Nigam, Adv.
versus
D.T.C. ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Manisha Tyagi, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
% J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
1. The DTC, as the petitioner before this Court, challenges an
Award, dated 17th January, 2001, passed by the learned Industrial
Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Tribunal"), vide which
the following term of reference, as referred to the learned Tribunal by
the Secretary (Labour) Delhi Administration, was adjudicated:
"Whether the punishment awarded to Shri Suresh Kumar by
way of reducing him to the initial stage in the time scale of
driver is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, what directions
are necessary in this respect?"
2. Vide the impugned Award, the learned Tribunal has decided the
above dispute, as referred to it, against the petitioner and in favour of
the respondent. The punishment awarded to the petitioner, vide order
dated 1st March, 1990, issued by the Depot Manager of the respondent,
of reduction of the petitioner to the "initial stage in a time scale",
stood thereby upheld.
3. The facts of the case, as pleaded by the petitioner before the
learned Tribunal, may be set out thus:
(i) The petitioner was employed as a driver, with the
respondent, since 16th June, 1989.
(ii) On 16th June, 1989, when he was on duty on Bus No.
9701, on the Jaipur-Delhi Route, the bus was intercepted by
checking officials, who, thereafter, alleged, against the
petitioner - falsely, as he would assert - that he had failed to
stop the bus at the bus stop, as a result of which the checking
staff had to pursue the bus and intercept it at a later point. The
petitioner contended that the said bus stop was not a scheduled
bus stop and that the checking staff was also not in uniform.
(iii) Be that as it may, the petitioner was served with a charge-
sheet, dated 30th June, 1989, which was in vernacular. The
charge therein, translated into English, reads thus:
" You were on duty on bus No.DIP 9701 Jaipur to
Delhi route on 16.6.1989. Checking staff was stationed
at Bairat Nagar School at about 11.40 to check your
bus. When your bus reached there, the checking staff
signalled by hand as well as by diary for stopping the
bus and whistled but you intentionally did not stop the
bus. Later on the bus was got stopped by chase with
the help of a jeep and on checking 24 passengers were
found travelling without tickets. The conductor had
collected the due fare from the said passengers. It
shows that you were in league with the conductor in
such cheating.
Your aforesaid act is a misconduct under para
No.19(a) & (h) & (m) of the Standing orders governing
the conduct of the employees of the Delhi Transport
Corporation.
The report dtd. 16.6. 89 of Shri Suraj Bhan T.I.
on which the aforesaid charge-sheet is based is
enclosed herewith. Your past record will be taken
under consideration at the time of recommendation and
final orders.
If you require personal hearing, you should
apply for the same in your explanation. Your
explanation should reach the undersigned within 10
days failing which ex-parte decision will be taken
without hearing you."
(iv) On the basis of the afore-quoted allegation, the petitioner
was directed to show cause as to why action be not taken
against him under the Delhi Road Transport Laws
(Amendment) Act, 1971 read with Delhi Road Transport
Authority (Conditions of Appointment & Service) Regulations,
1952, as the act alleged constituted a misconduct, under sub-
paras (a), (b), (h) & (m) of Para 19 of the Standing Orders
governing employees of the respondent.
(v) The petitioner responded, to the above mentioned
charge-sheet, vide a short letter, dated 30th June, 1989, in which
the petitioner submitted, while accepting that the checking staff,
located at the Bairat Nagar bus stop, that had signalled his bus
to stop, that he had to by-pass a truck which was parked on the
road and stop ahead of the said truck. He, therefore,
categorically denied the allegation that he had failed to respond
to the signals of the checking staff, requiring him to stop the
bus.
(vi) The checking report, dated 16th June, 1989, of the G.M.
(1) Squad, which had sought to stop the bus, signed by the three
members of the said squad, reads thus:
" We were standing at the Bairat Nagar School at
the aforesaid place and time to check the aforesaid bus.
We made a signal to the driver with diary as well as
whistle but the driver intentionally ran away with the
bus. We intercepted the bus with the help of Jeep DNA
4577. We entered into bus (checking and we checked
we found that 24 passengers were without ticket in the
bus, though the conductor had received the bus fare
from them but he had not issued the tickets to them.
Thereafter we inquired from the driver as to
why he did not stop the bus but his reply was not
satisfactory. We challaned the driver vide challan
No.201677 but the driver refused to sign and receive
the challan. The original Memo of driver was taken
and he was given duplicate memo with the remark."
(vii) Inquiry proceedings followed. The records of the said
inquiry proceedings, as held on 22nd September, 1989, 6th
November, 1989 and 10th November, 1989 may be reproduced
(as translated) thus:
" Proceedings dated 22nd September, 1989
Oral and detailed inquiry is being initiated today
on 22.09.1989 against Shri Suresh Kumar, Driver
Badge No.11505 into the charges pending against him.
Present: Sh. G.K.Sharma, Inquiry Officer
Sh. Suresh Kumar, Driver, 11505
On inquiry the accused informed that he did not
wish to appoint any defence representative as he
himself was capable of conducting his inquiry.
Sd./-
Suresh Kumar
Driver Badge No.11505
22.9.89
Charge-sheet No.IPD/S.P./t/CS-94/88/6246 dated
30.6.89 was read-over to the accused. The accused
denied the charges.
Sd/-
Suresh Kumar
Driver No.11505
dtd. 22.9.89
Statement- Shri Zile Singh A.T.I., No.16039 is being
recorded herewith;-
Statement: I was on duty in Jeep No.DNA
4577 on 16.6.89 alongwith Shri Suraj Bhan and
Shri Kishan A.T.I, for flying checking. We were
standing at Bairat Nagar School for checking
the buses. The said place is at a distance of half
kilo meter from Bairat Nagar Stand. Bus
No.9701 Jaipur-Delhi via Alwar was
approaching.
We signalled the driver for stopping the
bus for the purposes of checking and at that time
all the three members of the checking team were
standing there. The driver after seeing us
intentionally drove away the bus. We got hold
of the bus at Bairat Nagar Stand with the help of
the jeep. At that time 24 passengers were there
in the bus without tickets. The driver did not
give any satisfactory answer when he was asked
the reason for not stopping the bus. It proves
that the driver had committed fraud in league
with the conductor in the bus. The driver was
challaned but he refused to sign on the challan.
Sd/-
Zile Singh
Sd/-
Suresh Kumar
Driver 11505 dtd. 22.9.89
The accused was given opportunity to cross
examine the witness.
Question: Did you give whistle for stopping the bus?
Answer: When we had shown the diary, we did not
deem it necessary to give whistle.
Question: When you show the diary for stopping the
bus, was there a truck standing in front of the same.
Answer: There was no truck standing in break down
nor there was any other vehicle.
I do not want to ask any other question.
Sd/-
Suresh Kumar
Driver 11505
Sd/-
Zile Singh
The accused informed that he did not want to
ask any question from the other members of the
checking staff.
Sd/- Sd/-
Sri Kishan Suresh Kumar
A.T.I. Driver 11505 dtd. 22-9-89
Sd/-
Suraj Bhan
T.I.
The accused informed that passengers of the bus
should be summoned in his defence whose names are
mentioned in the case of Shri Jagbir Singh, Conductor
Badge No.15525. Enquiry is adjourned.
Sd/-
G.K. Sharma
Inquiry Officer
Dtd. 22.9.89
Received copy of the inquiry proceedings.
Sd/-
Suresh Kumar
11505 dtd. 22-9-89"
Proceedings dated 6th November, 1989
Oral and detailed enquiry in the case of Shri
Suresh Kumar driver Badge No.ll505 which was
adjourned on 22.9.89 is being started today on 6.11.89.
Present: Shri G.K. Sharma: Enquiry Officer 0151
Shri Suresh Kumar, Driver, 11505
The chargesheeted employees told that
passengers were sent intimations three times by UPC
but they did not present themselves. The chargesheeted
employee is told that he should give his defence
statement on 10.11.89. The past record of the accused
may be summoned. The enquiry is adjourned.
Sd/- Suresh Kumar Sd/- G.K.
Driver, B.No.11505 6.11.89
Enquiry Officer
6.11.89
Proceedings dated 10th November, 1989
" The oral and detailed enquiry in the case of Shri
Suresh Kumar driver Batch No.11505 which was
adjourned on 6.11.89 is being started today on
10.11.89.
The chargesheeted employee has presented
himself to submit his defence statement. The
chargesheeted employee has submitted one page in
Hindi language which is filed in the proceedings.
Sd/-Suresh Kumar B.No. 11505
10.11.89
The enquiry proceedings are being concluded
today with the right that the same may be reopened
again if required in the interest of justice.
Sd/-Suresh Kumar Sd/- G.K.
B.No.11505 10.11
10.11.89 Enquiry Officer
10.11.89"
(viii) The Inquiry Officer, deputed to conduct the
aforementioned disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner,
submitted his Inquiry Report, dated 15th December, 1989, which
reads thus:
" This case is based on the report of Shri Suraj
Bhan, Traffic Inspector, Shri Kishan, Shri Zile Singh,
A.T. is against Shri Suresh Kumar, driver. The driver
Suresh Kumar B. No.l1505 was suspended vide letter
No.LP.D.(S.P.)CS-94-98/6048 dt.21.6.89 and was
chargesheeted vide charge-sheet No.6246 dt.30.6.89 in
which following irregularities were mentioned:-
" You were deputed for duty on the
Jaipur-Delhi Bus Route on Bus No.9701
on 16.6.89. The Checking staff was
standing at about 11.40 at the Bairat
Nagar school to check your Bus. When
your Bus arrived at that place the
Checking staff made a signal with hand
and the diary as well as blew whistle but
you intentionally did not stop the bus at
that place. Thereafter the Bus was
intercepted by persuit by the Jeep and on
checking 24 passengers were found
without tickets. The conductor had
received the requisite bus fare from these
passengers. This shows that you were in
conspiracy with the conductor in the
cheating."
The charge-sheeted employee in his reply had
informed that he had stopped the bus and there was a
truck parked which he had to by-pass before stopping
the bus.
The explanation of the employee was not found
satisfactory and therefore the case was sent to the
Enquiry Officer for enquiry.
The charge-sheet was read over to the charge-
sheeted employee before the start of the enquiry and
the charges were denied by him.
Shri Zile Singh A.T.I. in his statement in
evidence on 22.9.89 stated that he was on duty on
16.6.89 on the Jeep along-with other checking staff
Shri Suraj Bhan and Shri Kishan. They were standing
on the Bairatnagar school which is at a distance of
about half a kilometer from the Bairat Nagar Bus
stand. The Bus No.9701 reached the spot via Alwar on
the Jaipur-Delhi route and they gave a signal to stop
the bus. The driver did not stop the bus intentionally
when all the three were standing.
We persued the bus and intercepted it at the
Bairat Nagar Bus stop.
There were 24 passengers in the bus without
any tickets. When the checking staff inquired from the
driver, he did not give satisfactory answer. The driver
and the conductor conspired to play fraud in the bus.
The driver was also challaned. The driver
refused to receive the challan.
The chargesheeted employee declined to ask
questions from the other members of the checking
staff. He asked questions from Zile Singh ATI. The
driver submitted that the passengers in the case of
Jagbir Singh conductor B.No.15525 may be summoned
in his defence. The driver was informed that the
passengers were called but none of them appeared.
The charge sheeted employee submitted his
defence-statement on 10.11.89 in which he stated that
Shri Zile Singh had replied to one question (in cross
examination) that they showed only diary, and did not
deem it necessary to blow whistle. He submitted at in
conclusion that the checking report was false.
CONCLUSION:
It is clear from the aforesaid detailed enquiry
that the driver was on duty on 16.6.89 on bus No.DEP
9701 on Jaipur-Delhi Route. The driver did not stop
the bus inspite of the signal of the checking staff at the
Bairat Nagar school. It was found on checking, after
intercepting the bus by the jeep, that there was 24
passengers without tickets from whom the conductor
had received the bus-fare but had not issued the tickets.
The driver did not produce any reliable evidence in his
defence. The passengers were summoned in his
defence but none of the passengers appeared. In his
defence statement the driver submitted that to the
question whether the checking staff had blown whistle
for stopping the bus, the checking staff replied that
when the driver was shown the diary, it was not
necessary to blow the whistle. Driver has submitted
that the report of checking staff states that whistle was
blown and the diary was shown. There is no force in
the statement of the driver because when the bus was
checked there were 24 passengers without tickets. The
fact that there were 24 passengers found without
tickets prove the guilt of the driver in not-stopping the
bus. It also proves that he was in conspiracy with the
conductor in the cheating.
The report is submitted for further action."
(ix) The Depot Manager, as Disciplinary Authority,
communicated the aforementioned Inquiry Report, dated 15th
December, 1989, to the petitioner, vide Memorandum dated 6th
February, 1990, expressing a provisional opinion that the
charge, as found to be proved against the petitioner, merited
imposition, on him, of the penalty of reduction to the initial
stage in the time scale, and allowing the petitioner an
opportunity of showing cause thereagainst.
(x) It appears that, thereafter, the aforementioned penalty of
reduction to the initial stage of the time scale was, indeed,
imposed on the petitioner and his appeal, thereagainst, was also
rejected by the appellate authority.
(xi) Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner raised an industrial
dispute, which, after having been failed to attain resolution
thereof, conciliation, was referred, by the Secretary (Labour),
Delhi Administration, for adjudication, to the learned Tribunal,
vide order dated 17th November, 1992.
(xii) The petitioner filed his Statement of Claim before the
learned Tribunal. It was reiterated, in the said Statement of
Claim, that the Birat Nagar School, where the checking staff
had attempted to stop the bus, was not a designated bus stop and
that the checking officials were also not in uniform. He further
contended that the allegations in the charge-sheet were based on
conjectures and surmises. It was asserted that the allegation,
which related to collection of money from 24 passengers when
issuing tickets to them, essentially related to the conductor of
the bus, and not to the driver i.e. himself. It was further sought
to be pointed out that the allegation was based on the sole report
of a single checking official who deposed in a perfunctory
manner. The petitioner also alleged violation, during the inquiry
proceedings, of the principles of natural justice, as he was not
given any opportunity to defend himself, and was not permitted
the assistance of a co-worker, or given an opportunity to
produce defence witnesses. Ventilating these, among other
grievances, the petitioner prayed that the punishment imposed
on him be declared illegal. Consequential relief was also prayed
for.
(xiii) The learned Tribunal examined, first, the propriety and
validity of the inquiry held against the petitioner. It was noted
that the charge-sheet specifically alleged connivance, between
the driver and the conductor, to cheat the passengers, which is
why the conductor collected the extra fares, and the driver, i.e.
the petitioner, sought to evade the checking staff by not
stopping the bus when signalled to do so.
(xiv) On the issue of conformity, of the inquiry proceedings,
with the principles of natural justice, the learned Tribunal noted
that the petitioner had, in fact, participated in the inquiry
proceedings and had specifically declined to avail the services
of a defence assistant, as noted in the Inquiry Report of Sh.
Suraj Bhan, Traffic Inspector, who was one of the members of
the checking staff, and that the report also contained the names
of the other members of the squad.
(xv) The respondent had led the evidence of Zile Singh, A.T.I,
who was cross examined by the petitioner. The petitioner had
further requested for production of the passengers who travelled
in the bus, as his defence witnesses, but despite notice being
issued to them, the passengers did not respond.
(xvi) In these circumstances, it was noted that the Inquiry
Officer had found the charge against the petitioner to be proved.
(xvii) Holding that there had been complete compliance with
the principles of natural justice while conducting the
disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, the learned
Tribunal held the claim of the petitioner to be devoid of merit,
and the punishment imposed on him to be legal and justified. As
a result, the reference made to it was answered, by the learned
Tribunal, in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner.
4. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner is before this Court.
5. I have heard Mr. Pancholi for the petitioner and Ms. Tyagi for
the respondent, in detail.
6. Mr. Pancholi has emphatically contended that the inquiry
proceedings against his client were conducted in violation of the
principles of natural justice. He has further sought to assert that the
blame, for collecting fares from passengers in excess of tickets issued
to them, could never be fastened on the driver of the bus, but
necessarily lay at the door of the conductor. Once this allegation was
removed from the charge-sheet, Mr. Pancholi would point out that the
only infraction, if at all, alleged against his client would be of failing
to stop the bus when signalled to do so, which, in his submission,
would be an extremely minor dereliction, not warranting disciplinary
proceedings and imposition of penalty.
7. Mr. Pancholi has also relied on the judgments of the Supreme
Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar,
1994 SCC (L & S) 1009 and State of Punjab v. V.K.Khanna, 2001 (2)
SCC 330.
8. In my estimation, the facts of the present case do not disclose
any basis for this Court to interfere.
9. The parameters governing the scope of interference, by writ
courts, with awards of Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals, stand
delineated in several authoritative pronouncements. The guiding
principles, governing exercise of such jurisdiction, are stated in the
following classic passages, from Syed Yakoob v. K.S.
Radhakrishnan, AIR 1964 Supreme Court 477:
"7. The question about the limits of the jurisdiction of High
Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under Article 226 has
been frequently considered by this Court and the true legal
position in that behalf is no longer in doubt. A writ of
certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction
committed by inferior courts or tribunals: these are cases
where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals without
jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a result of failure to
exercise jurisdiction. A writ can similarly be issued where in
exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or Tribunal
acts illegally or in properly, as for instance, it decides a
question without giving an opportunity to be heard, to the
party affected by the order, or where the procedure adopted in
dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural
justice. There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to
issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the
Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an Appellate Court.
This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached
by the inferior Court or Tribunal as result of the appreciation
of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ
proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of
the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact,
however grave it may appear to be. In regard to finding of fact
recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it
is shown that in recording the said finding, the Tribunal had
erroneously refused to admit admissible and material
evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence
which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a
finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be
regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ
of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, however,
we must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded
by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ
of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material
evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or
inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or
sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact
to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be
agitated before a writ Court. It is within these limits that the
jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 to
issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised.
8. It is, of course, not easy to define or adequately describe
what an error of law apparent on the face of the record means.
What can be corrected by a writ has to be an error of law; it
must be such an error of law as can be regarded as one which
is apparent on the face of the record. Where it is manifest or
clear that the conclusion of law recorded by an inferior Court
or Tribunal is based on an obvious misinterpretation of the
relevant statutory provision, or sometimes in ignorance of it,
or may be, even in disregard of it, or is expressly founded on
reasons which are wrong in law, the said conclusion can be
corrected by a writ of certiorari. In all these cases, the
impugned conclusion should be so plainly inconsistent with
the relevant statutory provision that no difficulty is
experienced by the High Court in holding that the said error of
law is apparent on the face of the record. It may also be that in
some cases, the impugned error of law may not be obvious or
patent on the face of the record as such and the Court may
need an argument to discover the said error; but there can be
no doubt that what can be corrected by a writ of certiorari is
an error of law and the said error must, on the whole, be of
such a character as would satisfy the test that it is an error of
law apparent on the face of the record. If a statutory provision
is reasonably capable of two constructions and one
construction has been adopted by the inferior Court or
Tribunal, its conclusion may not necessarily or always be
open to correction by a writ of certiorari. In our opinion, it
neither possible nor desirable to attempt either to define or to
describe adequately all cases of errors which can be
appropriately described as errors of law apparent on the face
of the record. Whether or not an impugned error is an error of
law and an error of law which is apparent on the face of the
record, must always depend upon the facts and circumstances
of each case and upon the nature and scope of the legal
provision which is alleged to have been misconducted or
contravened."
10. The discretion granted to the disciplinary authority, to assess
whether the allegedly delinquent employee was, in fact, guilty of the
infraction imputed to him and, if so, the quantum of punishment to be
imposed, therefore, are required to be respected. No doubt, if the
findings of the disciplinary authority, or the quantum of the
punishment imposed on him, are found to be tainted with arbitrariness
or perversity, or are such as would shock the conscience of the court
and would not commend themselves to any ordinary person,
conversant with the facts of the case, this Court would be duty bound
to interference. Short thereof, however, the hands of this Court are
tied.
11. In the present case, the petitioner was issued a charge-sheet and
given an opportunity to respond thereto. He was even served with the
initial copy of the report of the checking staff, on the basis of which
the charge-sheet was passed. The learned Tribunal has returned an
observation that, though the said report was signed only by one
officer, it bore the signatures of all the members of the checking
squad.
12. The petitioner responded to the report, and it was noted,
thereafter, that the Inquiry Officer was appointed. Mr. Pancholi has
sought to contend, in this case, that the Disciplinary Authority ought
to have first written to the petitioner, and rejecting his response to the
charge-sheet, before appointing the IO.
13. I am unable to see any such requirement in law. Even assuming
any such requirement were present, non-compliance thereto, in a case
such as the present, could hardly be said to be fatal.
14. In the inquiry that followed, the petitioner was given full
opportunity. He was given the option of engaging of defence assistant,
which the petitioner declined, stating that he would conduct the
inquiry himself. He was also given an opportunity to cross-examine
the management witness, which he availed. The witnesses whom the
petitioner sought to cite as his defence witness, unfortunately, did not
condescend to turn up at the inquiry.
15. The Inquiry Officer, in such circumstances, proceeded to
analyse the charge and found the charge to be proved against the
petitioner, relying, therefor, on the deposition of Zile Singh.
16. In my view, no such perversity can be said to exist, in the said
approach, or in the findings of the Inquiry Officer or the disciplinary
authority, as would merit interference by this Court.
17. Mr. Pancholi also sought to contend that the liability, for
collecting fare without issuing tickets, always lay, so to speak, at the
door of the conductor, and not at the seat of the driver.
18. The contention is, undoubtedly, attractive, and worthy of
consideration.
19. There can be no doubt about the fact that the person, in the bus,
who has to issue tickets against the fare collected is the conductor and
not driver. Had the allegation being restricted only to collection of
fare without tickets, there can be no manner of doubt that the
inculpation of the driver of the bus, therefor, might ordinarily not have
been sustainable.
20. In the present case, however, the allegation does not rest there.
What is alleged is that the driver in connivance with conductor in this
regard and that it was for this reason that the driver defaulted in
stopping the bus, when signalled to do so, by the checking staff.
21. Whether, in fact, the driver did not stop the bus, because of this
reason, or not, may be a moot question. The authorities below i.e. the
Inquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority and the learned Tribunal, have,
however, concurrently held that this was so. The rationality of this
finding, in my view, cannot be questioned, as, given the fact that 24
passengers were found not carrying tickets, though they had paid
fares, the omission, on the part of the driver, to stop the bus, when
signalled to do so, could be attributed, to a reasonable person
conversant with the facts, to an attempt to evade detection of the extra
collection of fare by the checking staff. Such a conclusion can hardly
be said to be perverse, in the given facts. Neither can it be said to be
such as would not appeal to any reasonable man conversant with facts.
22. It was probably keeping in mind the lesser degree of culpability
of the driver, in such a situation, that the authorities below, have
imposed on him, only a punishment of reduction in pay scale.
23. Had the driver been expressly complicit in the act of collecting
fares without issuing tickets, he would undoubtedly be liable to be
removed from services.
24. In awarding, to the driver, the lesser punishment of reduction of
pay, in the time scale, therefore, the disciplinary authority adopted a
holistic view of the facts, with which no fault can possibly be found.
25. Clearly, therefore, the learned Tribunal could not be faulted for
having approved the said punishment, as awarded, by the Disciplinary
Authority to the petitioner.
26. For the above reasons, I do not see the present case as one
which would warrant interference, by this Court, in exercise of the
extraordinary jurisdiction vested in it, under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
27. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed, with no orders as to
costs.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
OCTOBER 31, 2018
dsn
