RAJINDER KUMAR Vs. DTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 22.01.2013 by the learned Single Judge dismissing his writ petition.

(2.) THE appellant was appointed by the respondent management Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) as a Conductor on 08.03.1978. He was issued with the chargesheet on 5.12.2000 alleging that on 7.11.2000 in the course of surprise checking, it was discovered that five ticketless passengers were travelling in the interstate bus journey. Those passengers had claimed that they had paid the full fare to the appellant. The enquiry initiated pursuant to the chargesheet concluded that the charges levelled were proved and the report was furnished to the appellant. Thereafter, disciplinary authority by an order dated 19.07.2002 removed the petitioner/appellant from service. The appellant raised an industrial dispute which was referred on 19.09.2003 by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi to the Labour Court for adjudication. On 03.10.2006, Labour Court, upon having examined the facts of proceedings and having assessed the fairness of enquiry, held in favour of the management. The conclusion recorded by the Labour Court was that there were no vitiating factors such as violation of principles of natural justice or violation of prescribed rules and that the enquiry was conducted in a fair and objective manner.

(3.) IN these circumstances, the appellant approached the learned Single Judge complaining that the Award had not appreciated that the basic facts alleged against the petitioner were not proved. The petitioner's first contention about the fairness of the enquiry proceedings was rejected by the learned Single Judge who took notice of the order of 03.10.2006 and further noticed that the Labour Court had taken into account binding judgment of the Supreme Court as well as considered the entire records. The learned Single Judge also rejected the appellant's contentions with regard to the concerned passengers not being produced in the enquiry and relied upon the decision in State of Haryana & Anr. v. Rattan Singh, (1997) 2 SCC 491, for this purpose. Likewise, learned Single Judge rejected the alleged disproportionality of punishment noticing that the petitioner/appellant had been charged and found guilty on three other previous occasions for the same misconduct.