Madras High Court
The Management vs The Special Deputy Commissioner Of ... on 17 October, 2024
W.P.No.22963 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.10.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.P. No.22963 of 2015
The Management,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Salem Division) Ltd.,
Bharathipuram, Salem Main Road,
Dharmapuri - 636 705,
rep. by its General Manager ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour,
DMS Compound, Anna Salai,
Chennai.
2.G.Anbalagan ... Respondents
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records passed by the first
respondent in A.P. No.475 of 2011 dated 18.06.2014 and to quash the
same and against the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Aswin
For R1 : Mrs.M.Jayanthi,
Additional Government Pleader
For R2 : Ms.V.Porkodi
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.22963 of 2015
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed, challenging the order of the Special
Deputy Commissioner of Labour, rejecting the Approval Petition of the
petitioner/Management on 18.06.2014 in A.P. No.475 of 2011.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the reason for
rejecting the Approval Petition is that there is violation of principles of
natural justice and that there is no prima facie evidence available to prove
the charges against the second respondent.
3.The second respondent has been charged for misconduct on the
allegation that the second respondent, who was working as a Conductor,
has issued seven tickets, worth Rs.90/- on 30.04.2011 without punching
and that he has received the ticket fare from the passengers in the previous
stage and made an alteration in the invoice and has misappropriated a sum
of Rs.1,980/- and carried the amount, which is less than Rs.35/-, collected
towards the ticket fare. He was given with the punishment of dismissal
from service based on the domestic enquiry conducted by the petitioner/
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Management. The Approval Authority has recorded the finding that there is
no prima facie evidence to prove the charges against the second respondent
and that the principles of natural justice has also not been followed.
4.The Approval Authority has appreciated the Approval Petition by
stating the judgment of Lalla Ram vs. DCM Chemical Works reported
in AIR 1978 (C) 1004 to find out whether the essential five aspects,
pointed out in the above judgment, has been complied with. For complying
with the principles of natural justice, the Authority has recorded that the
essential witnesses, like the passengers from whom the statement has been
obtained by the Ticket Checking Inspector, have not been examined during
the domestic enquiry and that the driver of the bus, who was examined as
Management side witness, has stated that he has just made an endorsement
as per the statement made by the Ticket Checking Inspector and that the
passengers did not make any complaint though the amount collected from
them.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is not
possible for the Management to bring the driver on the alleged day as no
one will come forward to depose evidence and the driver of the bus, being
the Colleague of the second respondent, would not have supported the
Management. The first respondent/Approval Authority did not choose to
appreciate the merits of the evidence and find out the prima facie evidence
on the basis of the report of the Ticket Checking Inspector. It is further
submitted that strict rules of evidence do not apply to the domestic enquiry
and the Approval Authority cannot assume the role of the Appellate
Authority over the disciplinary authority and reappraise the evidence.
6.When the Ticket Checking Inspector has given a report stating that
the second respondent has misappropriated the funds in improper manner,
it is obligatory on the part of the Management to prove the same during the
domestic enquiry. Though strict rules of evidence cannot be the standard of
proof during domestic enquiry, atleast for the sake of preponderance of
probability and to probabilise the charges made against the delinquent as
true, some essential witnesses ought to have been examined. In the absence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of any passenger witness, the Management had examined the driver of the
bus. The evidence of the driver also did not have materials to support the
charges levelled against the second respondent. In such case, it would be
difficult for the appropriate authority to get satisfied that the prima facie
evidence is available to prove the charge against the second respondent.
Though the statement has been obtained from some of the passengers with
their addresses, the Management did not even make any request to the
enquiry officer to send summons to produce those witnesses. In such
circumstances, the order of the Approval Authority rejecting the Approval
Petition cannot be found fault.
7. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
17.10.2024
Index: Yes / No
Speaking order / Non-speaking order
vga
To
The Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour,
DMS Compound, Anna Salai,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.N.MANJULA ,J.
vga
17.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
