MAHENDER PAL Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Impugned Award of 11th July, 2006 holds that petitioner's removal from service is legal and justified. It is noted in the impugned Award that petitioner was employed as a Conductor by respondent on 22nd June, 1985 and was issued charge-sheet on 15th December, 1992 on the allegation that on 23rd November, 1992 while he was on duty, he had not issued tickets to a group of five passengers and when the bus was intercepted by the Checking Team, then only, petitioner had started issuing tickets on seeing the Checking Team. In the Departmental Inquiry, three members of the Checking Team had deposed that five passengers in the bus in question were found without tickets and when petitioner was confronted about it, petitioner admitted his guilt. On the basis of Inquiry Report, petitioner's service stood terminated. Before trial court, Mr. B.P. Nigam (MW1) had deposed about the Inquiry conducted and petitioner had also deposed before trial court. On the basis of evidence led, trial court has returned the finding that the Inquiry conducted against petitioner was fair and his service has been legally terminated.

(2.) The challenge to impugned Award by learned counsel for petitioner is on the ground that departmental Inquiry was not fairly conducted because intimation of the Inquiry was given to petitioner by UPC, which was not received by him and despite being on duty, he was not orally informed about the Inquiry and when on the next date of hearing, he had appeared, the evidence was already recorded and that the evidence recorded was not supplied to him and he was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses.

(3.) Regarding the termination of petitioner's service, it is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the charge-sheet issued was vague as it merely states that the intention of petitioner was mala fide i.e. to steal. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the cash in the hands of petitioner was not checked and so, there is no basis to hold that petitioner had in any way cheated and no statement of passenger was recorded and that the admission made by petitioner was not incriminatory as there was no admission of guilt by petitioner. Lastly, it is submitted by petitioner's counsel that the so-called admission of petitioner is self-explanatory and it does not in any way implicate petitioner and so, the penalty imposed deserves to be set aside and petitioner ought to be reinstated in service with consequential benefits.