SHYAM SINGH Vs. D T C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant on this appeal which is filed against the order dated 29th September, 2004 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent-Delhi Transport Corporation. By the said order, the orders passed, on 23-4-1999 and 15-3-2001 by the Industrial Tribunal were set aside. The writ petition was filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders passed by the Tribunal. By the impugned order dated 23-4-1999, the Tribunal held that the domestic inquiry conducted against the workman was vitiated due to the failure of the Enquiry Officer to comply with the principles of natural justice. By the second order dated 15-3-2001, the application filed by the Delhi Transport Corporation for approval under section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was rejected.

(2.) THE appellant herein was a bus conductor working with the Delhi Transport Corporation. On the allegation of misconduct committed on 6-6-1993, departmental proceedings were initiated against the appellant. It was alleged that a routine checking party had found four passengers travelling without tickets in the bus wherein the appellant was working as the conductor. On inquiry by the checking staff, the said passengers stated that although they had paid the due fares, yet the workman-bus conductor had not issued tickets to them. The statements of the four passengers were recorded and a challan was prepared. The workman-conductor of the bus signed the challan as well as the statements of all the four passengers. He also handed over four unpunched tickets of the requisite denominations to the checking staff. A way bill was also prepared by which the respondent-workman deposited the entire cash amount, including that covered by the unpunched tickets.

(3.) PURSUANT to the issuance of aforesaid charge-sheet, in the regular departmental inquiry the appellant was found to be guilty of misconduct. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report in which he chose to disbelieve the two passenger witnesses wno had appeared as defence witnesses. The Enquiry Officer relied upon the evidence adduced by the other witnesses and held that the appellant was guilty of the charges. The Disciplinary Authority went through the records including the report of the Enquiry Officer and on being satisfied, passed an order removing the workman from service. The Delhi Transport Corporation thereupon fired an application under section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act seeking approval from the learned Tribunal of the action taken by the Corporation in removing the workman from service.