D.T.C. Vs. SAMAY SINGH EX.CONDUCTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition filed by the Delhi Transport Corporation/Management assails the order dated 29.09.2004 as also the Award dated 13.05.2005 passed by the learned Labour Court, Delhi in ID No.153/1996. Under the impugned order dated 29.09.2004, the Labour Court, after coming to the conclusion that the findings of the inquiry officer were perverse, held the inquiry to be vitiated. The petitioner was, accordingly, granted an opportunity to lead evidence to prove the misconduct of the respondent but the petitioner, except examining the inquiry officer, did not lead any other evidence in support of its case. In these circumstances, the Labour Court, by way of the impugned award dated 13.05.2005, was constrained to hold that no material had been placed on record to justify the respondent's termination.

(2.) The brief facts as emerge from the record are that the respondent, having been appointed as a Conductor with the Corporation on 28.12.1979, was brought on the regular rolls w.e.f. 01.10.1980. On 28.03.1994, he was issued a chargesheet in respect of an alleged incident of 10.03.1994 which took place while he was performing his duties on Bus DL-1P-9939 which was operated on the interstate route between Meerut and Delhi, whereunder the following charges were levelled against him:-

(3.) As the respondent denied the charges, a domestic enquiry was conducted against him. Since the basic charge against the respondent was that he, despite having collected ticket fare from two passengers, had failed to issue tickets to them, Sh. Siraj Ahmed, one of the passengers was examined as a witness in this inquiry. In his testimony before the inquiry officer, the aforesaid Sh. Ahmed deposed that though he had been duly issued a ticket by the respondent, he had inadvertently dropped it on the bus and was unable to locate the same. Sh. Ahmed further denied having given any voluntary statement to the Checking Staff to the effect that the respondent/conductor, despite collecting the fare from him, had not issued him any ticket. His categorical stand before the Inquiry Officer was that he had duly been issued a ticket by the respondent which he had misplaced. The inquiry officer, on the basis of the evidence led before it, concluded that charge Nos.1, 3 and 4 stood proved against the respondent. Based on this Inquiry Report, the respondent was removed from the service vide order dated 13.03.1995.