DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. OM PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the entire record which was before the writ court, has been filed with the appeal. We have consequently heard learned counsel for the appellant who has taken us through the relevant record. The appellant assails the judgment dated 20th August, 2014 passed in WP (C) No.596/2013 filed by the Delhi Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'DTC') which has been dismissed. The learned Single Judge has thereby upheld the order dated 18th December, 2009 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court holding that the disciplinary proceedings conducted by the DTC against the respondent-workman was vitiated and illegal as well as the industrial Award dated 27th August, 2012 finding the termination of the services of the respondent contrary to law and consequently directing re-instatement of the respondent with 50% back wages.

(2.) It is an admitted position that the respondent was working since 1982 with the DTC as a conductor. With regard to an alleged incident on 5th June, 1992, a charge-sheet dated 16th June, 1992 was issued to the respondent alleging that while performing duty on 5th June, 1992 on DTC Bus No.9206 plying on route no.838, the checking team of the DTC in Uttam Nagar at 10.15 a.m. was informed by the ticket less passengers that the respondent had accepted fare of Rs.2/- each from two passengers who had boarded the bus from Hari Nagar Ghanta Ghar for Uttam Nagar without issuing tickets to the passengers thereby causing financial loss to the DTC. The DTC alleged that the respondent had accepted his fault and surrendered two unpunched tickets of Rs.2/- each to the checking team. The checking team recorded statement of the passengers to the above effect.

(3.) On receipt of a report dated 5th June, 1992 from the ticket inspectors, the respondent was placed under suspension vide memo dated 10th June, 1992. After considering the reply by the respondent, the matter stood referred to the inquiry officer. The inquiry officer submitted a report to the disciplinary authority finding the respondent guilty of the misconduct. After service of the copy of the inquiry report and giving opportunity to file a defence, by an order dated 10th March, 1995, the disciplinary authority accepted the recommendations of the inquiry officer and imposed penalty of removal from service against the respondent.