DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. KRISHAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality of order of the Industrial Tribunal-II dated 3.3.2003 whereby Tribunal dismissed the application of the petitioner under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Dispute Act.

(2.) Briefly, the facts are that respondent workman was employed as an Assistant Store Keeper with the petitioner corporation at its B.B.M.Depot. His duty was on the petrol pump of the depot. It was found that there was a difference of 110 liters of diesel in the consumption statement during his duty on 02.6.1990. When the respondent was asked about this difference, he gave a written explanation, wherein he stated that on that day he had to hurriedly hand over the charge to his reliever as he had received information about the serious illness of his wife and he was in tension because of this information there could be a mistake made by him. He also sought permission to deposit cost of 110 litres of diesel. A charge-sheet was issued to him about this on 18.6.1990 and he gave reply to this charge-sheet on 20.6.1990. In reply to the charge- sheet, he stated that on 02.6.1990 due to rush of the buses he forgot to make an entry in respect of some buses which might have taken diesel and also gave excuse of being in tension due to illness of his wife and handing over of charge hurriedly to his reliever without making proper entry. After receiving the reply to the charge-sheet, the management got some suspicion and made wider enquiries into the conduct on duty of the respondent, on the petrol pump of depot. Enquiries were made from the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, whose buses used to take diesel from the depot and on enquiry from Pathankot Depot of Punjab Roadways, it was found that respondent had been issuing false certificates to the buses of the Pathankot Depot from time to time about defect in diesel pump/electricity failure and he was not supplying the diesel to the buses. Mr. Kashmira Singh, another Assistant Store Keeper was sent to Pathankot Depot to bring the information. A preliminary enquiry was initiated into the conduct of the respondent by an Assistant Accounts officer. Statement of the respondent was also recorded by the Assistant Accounts officer and after making preliminary enquiry, the earlier charge-sheet issued for the difference of 110 liters of diesel was withdrawn and a comprehensive charge-sheet including all other misconducts discovered by the petitioner was issued. In this charge- sheet, it was alleged that respondent with the the intention to cheat willfully issued false certificates to the drivers of Bus Nos. PB 12-8856, PB 12-8867 (two times) and PJG 4095 on 25.5.1990, 26.5.1990, 28.5.1990 and 30.5.1990 respectively. The other charge was that on 30.5.1990 Bus no. PJB 4014 came to him to take diesel, he issued a checking note No. 204024 but, thereafter, from the checking note he deleted Bus No. 4014 and instead wrote Punjab Roadways Bus No. PC 12-9407 and, thereafter, cancelled the checking note illegally. On 2.6.1990 he issued High Speed Diesel to Punjab Roadways, Pathankot Bus No. PJG 4100 and did not make an entry of the same in the record. To compensate the difference of 110 liters of diesel, on 2.6.1990 he dishonestly made a false entry of this amount of diesel. On 26.5.1990 he wrongfully changed the opening balance from 944660 to 944664.

(3.) After charge-sheet was furnished to him, he did not give any reply to the charge-sheet and the matter was referred for enquiry to the enquiry officer. Enquiry was conducted into the charges and enquiry officer found all the charges proved against the respondent. The report of enquiry officer was sent to Disciplinary Authority and a copy of the report was given to the respondent. Disciplinary Authority issued a show cause notice to respondent dated 6.11.1991 and after considering the reply given by the respondent, Disciplinary Authority removed the respondent from the service. An application was filed before the Labour Court under Section 33(2)(b) seeking approval of the action taken by the petitioner under this provision as required under law.