PREM CHAND Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prem Chand joined the service of the respondent- corporation as a Conductor on 22.6.198. On 12.3.1992, the Checking Party found hi in in possession of excess cash as well as re-selling the used tickets. Consequently, a departmental enquiry was held against him and on the charge against him being found proved, he had been dismissed vide order dated 6.7.1992. Thereafter, he had preferred appeal before the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, but the same has been dismissed and, therefore, he has filed the present petition.

(2.) It is contended by the petitioner that the said order of dismissal is contrary to the Office Order No. I issued vide Circular No. ADMI-3(18)/65 dated 3.1.1966. He has also urged that the punishment awarded to him is also grossly excessive and harsh one. According to him, the Enquiry Officer was also not justified in holding that the charge against him was proved. Therefore, in the circumstances, he has come before this Court for quashing the order of his dismissal.

(3.) The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that we should go through the evidence recorded by the Enquiry Officer and find out whether the Enquiry Officer was justified in upholding the charges framed against him, having been proved. Petitioner must remember that it is not his case that there was no evidence against him but he wants to contend that the said evidence is not sufficient and the evidence ought not to have been accepted by the Enquiry Officer but it must be remembered that the High Court is not in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a Court of appeal which will reappreciate the evidence and on reappreciation of evidence evaluate the decision of the departmental enquiry against an employee. The Court is to only determine whether the enquiry is held by the authority competent in that behalf and is in accordance with the procedure prescribed in that behalf and whether the rules of natural justice have not been violated. A finding cannot be characterised as perverse or supported by any relevant material, if it is a reasonable inference from the proved facts. The Enquiry Officer has accepted the evidence of the officers of the Checking Party. The learned Advocate for the petitioner is not in a position to show that the said Enquiry Officer was not a Competent Authority to hold an enquiry. It is not also his contention that the finding is perverse. Therefore, in the circumstances, we cannot have reappreciation of the evidence by acting as an Appellate Court. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that we should consider the evidence and record a finding that the Enquiry Officer was not justified in holding that the charge against him was proved, is not tenable in law.