DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. GIAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DELHI Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner)has filed this writ petition seeking to challenge the impugned awards/orders dated 8. 11. 2004 and 4. 7. 2005 of the Labour Court, Delhi holding the findings of the Inquiry Officer to be perverse and declining opportunity to the Management to lead evidence to prove the misconduct of the respondent/workman before the labour Court. " The Labour Court vide its impugned award has directed reinstatement of the respondent/workman in service with 60% back wages, continuity of service and all other legal benefits.

(2.) THE factual matrix of the case giving rise to the present challenge is as follows :-

(3.) THE respondent was employed by the petitioner as a conductor. " On 23rd january, 1992 the respondent was performing his duty on Bus No. 9115 on route "sahibabad-Delhi". " Shri R. C. Dahiya, Ticket Inspector and other members of the checking staff of the petitioner checked the bus at about 1035 hours at Nand nagri Depot. " It was found that a group of 11 passengers was travelling in the bus without tickets. " The passengers had boarded into the bus at Rajender Nagar (Sahibabad) for going to Delhi and that the respondent as conductor of the bus had collected due fare of Rs. 38. 50 from the passengers but did not issue them tickets. " The respondent admitted his fault and surrendered 11 unpunched tickets bearing Nos. 000-89379 to 000-89389 to the checking staff. " The cash of the respondent was checked and it was found short by Rs. 15. 25 after deducting the amount of Rs. 38. 50 of the unpunched tickets. " The respondent being the conductor of the bus was challaned by the checking staff and on the back of the challan, the statements of the passengers found travelling without tickets were also recorded. " The petitioner found the respondent/workman guilty of misconduct within the meaning of para 19 (b), (h) and (m) of the Standing Orders governing the conduct of the DTC employees. The respondent/ workman was placed under suspension w. e. f. 29. 01. 1992 vide Memo No. WPD-3/i (T)/surp. /92/412 dated 29. 01. 1992. " Thereafter the respondent was served with a charge sheet dated 06. 02. 1992 calling upon him to explain as to why disciplinary action under clause 15 (2) of the DRTA (Conditions of appointment and service) Regulations, 1952 read with Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 and Delhi Road Transport laws (Amendment) Act, 1971 be not taken against him for the following irregularities :-