VIKRAM KUMAR Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred Writ Petition No.6810/2002 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to assail the order of removal from service dated 14th May, 1993 passed by the respondent-DTC, the judgment and order dated 11th July, 2000 passed by the Labour Court IX in ID No. 119/1994 and Writ Petition No.2810/03 to assail the order 3rd March, 2001 passed by Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal II in OP NO. 283/83. By order dated 14th May, 1993, the petitioner was removed from service by the respondent/DTC. By the order dated 11th July, 2000, the preliminary issue with regard to validity of the domestic enquiry held by the respondent against the petitioner was decided in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner holding the enquiry to have been properly held in compliance with the principle of natural justice. By the final award of the same date, the reference made to the Labour Court by the appropriate Government on 8th August, 1994 with regard to removal of petitioner from service has been answered in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner/workman. Vide order dated 3rd March, 2001, the action of the respondent to remove petitioner from service under Clause 15 (2) (vi) of DRTA (Conditions of Appointment of Service) Regulation 1952 was approved.

(2.) Petitioner was appointed as bus conductor with DTC in 1984. On 11th May, 1992, he was on duty in Bus No. 9434, route No. GL 429 wherein 49 passengers were travelling. The bus was checked by Sh. Jhaman Lal, T.I. who found one passenger without ticket. On checking, the cash of conductor was found to be in order. Sh. Jhaman Lal made necessary remarks on the complaint book and prepared challan which was given to the petitioner. On the basis of report submitted by Sh. Jhaman Lal, T.I., the respondent came to the conclusion that alleged irregularity amounted to misconduct within the meaning of para (b) (h) and (m) of the standing order governing the conduct of DTC employees. Accordingly, respondent issued challan slip to which petitioner submitted his reply, inter alia, contending that the passenger did not give him any money. Cash which was checked by the checking staff was found to be in order. Thereafter, charge sheet dated 14th July, 1992 was given to which petitioner submitted his reply. The respondent then held a domestic enquiry against the petitioner wherein statement of several witnesses produced by the management were recorded and opportunity to cross-examine them was given to the petitioner. Efforts were made by the management to secure the presence of the passenger but in vain, hence liberty was granted to the petitioner to produce him. Petitioner produced the passenger. Enquiry Officer submitted his report finding petitioner guilty of the charges. On submission of the domestic enquiry report, the petitioner was granted an opportunity to make his representation. After considering the same, respondent/employer passed the order dated 14th May, 1993 removing the petitioner from service. Since the petitioner raised an industrial dispute in respect thereof, the same was referred by the appropriate government for adjudication to the Labour Court which has rendered its award as aforesaid.

(3.) While passing the order dated 11th July, 2000, on the preliminary enquiry with regard to validity of the domestic enquiry, the Labour Court examined the plea of the workman that documents were not supplied to him and that the passenger did not support the plea of the Management. The Court observed that no plea of non-supply of document was taken by the workman either in the reply to charge sheet or in the statement of claim filed in Court. Moreover, no prejudice has been caused to the workman on account of non-supply of copy of documents. He was granted opportunity to inspect the documents, which he did not avail. As regards the fact that passenger did not support management, it was observed that enquiry officer had duly considered this aspect and observed that passenger seemed to have been won over by the workman. Otherwise, the workman had not taken this defence in reply to charge sheet. Rather in reply to charge sheet, he stated that he did not know from where the passenger hired the bus and passenger had falsely told the checking team that he had given the amount of fare to the conductor. Enquiry does not suffer from any infirmity. Having held so, it was observed that discretion of the Court u/s 11A to interfere with the quantum of punishment is limited. Charge of misappropriation is serious misconduct and the sum misappropriated is irrelevant. Hence, workman was not entitled to any relief.