D.T.C Vs. RAMESHWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to seek quashing of the order dated 11.12.1997 deciding the issue with regard to the legality and validity of the domestic enquiry conducted by the petitioner against the respondent workman, and the subsequent order dated 20.4.2001 of Industrial Tribunal No.II in OP No.234/1992 20.4.2001 in which the petitioner's application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act) has been decided against the petitioner, by declining the approval of the petitioner's decision to remove the respondent from service.

(2.) The brief facts are that the respondent was employed by the petitioner on 14.03.1985 as a conductor. On 26.09.1991 when the respondent was performing his duty as conductor on Bus No.9485 of RL-24 upside, a checking party of the petitioner checked the respondent's bus at 7:25 hours at Delhi Gate. The checking staff found that in the hand block of tickets held by respondent No.1, he was having 12 sold tickets, out of which 4 were punched from upside, and 8 were punched from down side. These tickets were of the denomination of Rs.2/- each. According to the petitioner, upon counting of the cash held by the respondent, he was found to be having excess cash of Rs.4/-. He was also not found sitting on his seat, but was standing on the front gate of the bus. The respondent was placed under suspension with effect from 1.10.1991. A chargesheet was issued to the respondent alleging misconduct by him. The charges levelled against the respondent were that his hand block had 12 sold tickets, four of them punched on the upside and eight of them on the down side and that the respondent had kept the sold tickets with the intention to resell the same. He was also charged with having excess cash of Rs.4/-, and that he was not found sitting on the seat of the conductor. The charge sheet alleged violation of para 19(c) (b) (f) & (h) of the Standing Orders of the petitioner Corporation. The respondent was also informed that his past record would also be considered while passing the final order.

(3.) The respondent filed his response to the said chargesheet. The case set up by the respondent was to the effect that at ITO four passengers boarded the bus and without purchasing their tickets they straight away went ahead. He stated that while asking the said passengers to purchase their tickets, he followed them upto to the front gate. When the respondent asked them to purchase their tickets, they took out two tickets and showed them to him. The respondent checked the tickets and stated that those tickets were not for the journey on the said bus. Thereupon, two other passengers gave their tickets to those four passengers and de-boarded the bus. As the respondent was not satisfied and did not agree with the said four passengers, they took out Rs.4/- and gave the same to the respondent and said that there is no need for them to buy tickets. Before the respondent could say anything to those four passengers, they pushed him and left the bus. Just then the checking staff started checking the bus and challaned the respondent. He further stated that the checking staff did not listen to him, and de-boarded him from the bus at Subhash Park and the duty of the conductor was assigned to another employee. He stated he was not aware, as to where from the two tickets handed over to him by the said passengers, had been issued. The respondent denied the allegations against him as baseless.