The Depot Manager, vs P. Shankaraiah
2021 Latest Caselaw 4384 Tel

     THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                             AND
                THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI


                        WRIT APPEAL No.734 of 2019

JUDGMENT:     (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)


      The present writ appeal is arising out of order dated

25.07.2018 passed in W.P.No.5603 of 2001 by the learned Single

Judge.

      The    undisputed            facts      of     the      case        reveal   that   the

respondent/employee, who superannuated in the year 2008, was

subjected to disciplinary proceedings and a charge sheet was

issued on 31.01.1997 and a punishment of removal order was

passed on 26.05.1997. The same was challenged by way of a

petition under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,

and the Labour Court has set aside the order of removal directing

reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service and back

wages. Against which, a writ petition was preferred by the

employer and the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ

petition. The award passed by the Labour Court is on record.

Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the order passed by the Labour Court are

reproduced as under:

"9. Ex.M1 is the enquiry report along with depositions in domestic enquiry. Ex.M2 is the SR Dt. 4-1-97. Ex.M3 is the SR Dt.5-1-97. It is undisputed that petitioner returned Exs.M2 and M3 on the respective dates and remitted cash in the Depot. The officers in-charge of receiving SRs and cash from the petitioner on the respective dates have not raised any objection for any corrections in Exs.M2 and M3. According to the management STI found the said corrections on 8-1-97. After, Exs.M2 and M3 are submitted by the petitioner in the office with cash, those documents are in the custody of concerned officer and the in the section. Petitioner is not custodian of Exs.M2 and M3 after they are submitted in the Depot at the end of the trip on the respective

dates. The petitioner stated in his explanation that the said corrections were not noticed by ADC or any officer at the time of receiving the SRS and that somebody might have made those corrections in the office behind the back the petitioner. STI only was examined in the domestic enquiry. STI in his evidence admitted that ADC will receive bus cash and verify the SRs.

According to STI, ADC will verify the three digits closed by the petitioner in the SRs. When ADC or other officer is the custodian of SRs. As Ex. M2 and M3 after the relevant dates, the burden is heavy on the Management in clinchingly establish that the petitioner conductor only made alterations in the SRs and caused loss to the Corporation by reducing of tickets, Because of those corrections found in Exs.M2 and M3, it is only an imagination of STI and enquiry officer that petitioner reissued tickets. There is practically no evidence for the management to say that petitioner reissued the tickets on the respective dates by making those corrections. The management has not examined concerned ADC who received Exs, M2 and 43 from the petitioner along with cash on the respective dates. On 5-1-97 there was also check by TTIs for the trip undertaken by the petitioner. TTIs have not noted any objections as corrections in Ex.M3-SR. The reply given by STI on this aspect in domestic enquiry is most irresponsible. If really petitioner made some alteration in Ex. M3 on 5.1.97, TTIs who checked the bus, should have noted the same in the SR. TTIs should have issued charge memo to the petitioner for the said corrections. This fact is sufficient to hold that corrections found in Ex.M3 were not made by the petitioner during the journey. There is no satisfactory evidence for the management to prove the two charges against the petitioner for the alterations allegedly made by him. It is more probable to believe that some officer in-charge of receiving the SRs or the officer who is custodian of SRs submitted by the conductors might have these alterations. This Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that management issued charge sheet by framing the two false charges against the petitioner. The Enquiry officer grossly erred in holding that petitioner only made these corrections and caused loss to the corporation by reissue of tickets. There is no material for the STI or enquiry officer to say that petitioner re-issued tickets by making those corrections on the respective dates. The findings of the enquiry officer on this aspect are imaginary basing on surprises without acceptable evidence. This Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that charges 1 and 2 are not proved by any acceptable evidence against the petitioner and so the findings of the enquiry officer on both the charges are set aside. Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

10) This Tribunal found the two charges against the petitioner are not proved by acceptable evidence. The findings of the enquiry officer on both the charges are not aside. So petitioner is entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages. As the two charges are found as false, suspension of the petitioner for those two charges is illegal. So the period of suspension shall be counted for continuity of service, back wages and all monetary benefits. It should be treated that petitioner was on duty in the period of suspension. As the two charges are found as not proved against the petitioner, the termination against the petitioner dt. 26.05.97 shall be set aside and the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. Point No.3 is answered accordingly."

The aforesaid award of the Labour Court makes it very clear

that charges were not at all substantiated on the basis of evidence

and the Labour Court, as the findings arrived at by the enquiry

officer were found to be adverse findings, has directed

reinstatement of the workman with consequential benefit.

This Court has also minutely scanned the entire award and is

of the opinion that it is not a case where the employee committed

alteration of service record in respect of his date of birth or in

respect of any important issue. There was some discrepancy in

respect of the details of tickets, which were issued to him and that

was also not proved. Therefore, as it was not a case of no evidence,

the Labour Court has set aside the order of removal and the

learned Single Judge has rightly declined to interfere with the order

passed by the Labour Court. This Court does not find any reason

to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There

shall be no order as to costs.

__________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

______________________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J 16.12.2021 ES