DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. PRITAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-management by way of this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has sought to assail the award dated 18th September, 2004 passed by the Labour Court whereby the punishment of removal from service awarded to the respondent-workman, who was employed as a conductor with the petitioner, for his having committed misconduct of defrauding the petitioner by misappropriating the amount of fare which had collected from two passengers while performing his duty as conductor on DTC bus and not issuing them the tickets, was held to be illegal and the respondent was directed to be reinstated with full back wages.

(2.) THE facts of the case may briefly be stated. Respondent- workman was employed as a conductor with the petitioner DTC. The respondent workman was on duty on 30th June, 1995 as a conductor DTC bus plying on Delhi-Shamli route. On the way the checking staff of DTC checked the respondent's bus and found that two passengers were not issued tickets. On enquiry they informed the checking staff that they had paid the fare upto their destination to the conductor, respondent herein, but he had not given them the tickets. On these allegations the respondent-workman was charge-sheeted on 19th, July, 1995. It was alleged that he had in that way caused financial loss to the petitioner by collecting full fare from two passengers without issuing them the tickets in return. The respondent-workman filed his reply to the charge-sheet in which he had taken the plea that he had issued the tickets to the passengers but they had lost the tickets and the passengers themselves had also told so to the checking officials. Since the said reply of the respondent- workman was found by the management to be unsatisfactory a regular departmental enquiry was ordered. Enquiry proceedings were initiated against the workman and the enquiry officer came to the conclusion that the charges of fraud, cheating and causing loss to the petitioner were not made out but at the same time he was held negligent in conducting his duties as he did not check the passengers whether they were having tickets or not. The Disciplinary Authority issued show cause notice dated 6th, March, 1996 to the respondent workman to show cause as to why he should not be removed from the services of the petitioner. The respondent filed his reply to the show cause notice dated 18 th March, 1996 in which he had claimed to be innocent. He further stated that if the passengers had lost the tickets then the checking officials should have imposed fine on the passengers but nothing was done by them. Not satisfied with the reply of the respondent-workman the Disciplinary Authority ordered his removal from service on 19th March, 1996.

(3.) THE respondent-workman filed a statement of claim before the Labour Court claiming his removal from service to be illegal on the ground that the enquiry officer had exonerated him of the charge of non-issuance of tickets to two of the passengers after collecting money from them and therefore, enquiry officer was not justified in holding him guilty of negligence as that charge was never levelled against him.