JAGDISH CHANDER Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant before us was employed as a conductor with the respondent -DTC. On 6.3.1994, the Vigilance Team of the DTC found three ticketless passengers travelling in the bus in which the appellant was on duty. On inquiry, the said team found that though the passengers had paid Rs. 13/ - each as fare to the appellant, he had failed to issue the requisite tickets to them. The statements of the passengers were recorded in the presence of the appellant, who also signed the said statements, without any protest of qualification. Pursuant thereto, a charge -sheet was delivered to the appellant on 25.4.1994. He submitted a reply dated 16.5.1994. Since the respondent was not satisfied with the reply filed by the appellant, an inquiry in the matter was initiated. The Inquiry Officer submitted a report dated 25.11.1994, reporting that though the appellant had taken the fare from the passengers, he had no intention not to issue tickets. In taking this view, the Inquiry Officer accepted the explanation of the appellant that he was about to issue tickets when the bus got out of order and on being called by the driver, he went to the front side to push the bus and as a result he could not issue tickets till the time of checking. The Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer and, inter alia, took the following view:

(2.) TWO contentions have been raised before us by the learned counsel for the appellant. The first contention is based upon the order dated 6.8.2004 whereby the Labour Court decided the preliminary issue. The contention is that since the said order dated 6.8.2004 setting aside the inquiry report was not challenged by the respondent, it could not have been questioned in the writ petition filed after passing of the award on 18.1.2005. The second contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that there was no dishonest intention on the part of the appellant to misappropriate the fare collected from the passengers and it was for a bonafide reason that he could not issue tickets, by the time the bus was checked by the Vigilance staff of the DTC.

(3.) THE first contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant was negated by the learned Single Judge holding that the order dated 6.8.2004 being an order passed in the proceedings and having not culminated into an award could be challenged while assailing the final outcome of the proceedings in the form of an award of the Labour Court. In this regard, he placed reliance upon the principles enshrined in Section 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure which, inter alia, provides for that where a decree is appealed from, any error, defect or irregularity in any order, affecting the decision of the case, may be set forth as a ground of objection in the memorandum of appeal. The learned Single Judge in this regard also referred to grounds E to G taken by the respondent in the writ petition.