T SUBRAMANIAM Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has come forward with this writ petition praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent First Additional Labour Court, Chennai relating to its order in I. D. No. 420 of 1995 dated 10. 11. 1997 and to quash the impugned order to the extent of declaring that there is no need to reinstate the petitioner in service, with a direction to the second respondent Transport Corporation to reinstate the petitioner in service, with backwages and other attendance benefits.

(2.) THE petitioner was employed as conductor in the second respondent/corporation, hereinafter referred to as corporation. While he was on duty, on 20. 07. 1991, in route No. 63-B between Mepur to Broadway, the bus was checked by the checking inspector at about 21. 45 hours and found that two cans of illicit liquor wrapped in a bag was kept under passenger seat and when questioned, nobody claimed ownership. The petitioner's cash bag was also checked and a deficit of Rs. 18. 45 was found therein. To this effect, a report was submitted by the checking inspector to the corporation and based on the same, a charge memo dated 29. 07. 1991 was issued to the petitioner alleging that (i) the petitioner has allowed two cans of illicit liquor to be carried over in the bus and (ii) there was a shortage of Rs. 18. 45. On receipt of the same, the petitioner has submitted his explanation stating that he had no knowledge about the two cans kept by the passengers in a bag; that he and the driver have spent Rs. 16/- for tea and meals. Not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, the corporation has appointed an enquiry officer, who conducted enquiry and submitted his report on 06. 04. 1992 finding that the first charge that the petitioner allowed the passenger to carry illicit alcohol is not proved, but two cans of alcohol found under the passengers seat is proved; that the second charge of temporary misappropriation of Rs. 18. 45 was proved. Based on the said report of the enquiry officer, on 28. 05. 199 2, the corporation has issued second show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service and on receipt of the same, the petitioner has submitted his explanation dated Nil. Thereafter, final order of dismissal from service was passed by the corporation on 03. 09. 1992, which was challenged by the petitioner before the first respondent/labour court by filing I. D. No. 420 of 1995. The first respondent, after consideration of the materials on record upheld the dismissal of service and directed the corporation to pay back wages and other monetary benefits to the petitioner from the date of dismissal of service till the date of award namely 10. 11. 1997. The refusal of relief of reinstatement is challenged in this writ petition.

(3.) MR. Manohar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in so far as the first charge is concerned, the enquiry officer has held that the allegation that the petitioner has allowed the passengers to carry two cans of alcohol is not proved. In so far as the second charge is concerned, the petitioner has submitted that he and the driver have spent Rs. 16/- for tea and meals, which he is entitled to use during the course of the duty, any event, the said act may amount to shortage and not misappropriation, which was not properly considered by the first respondent relying on clause 25 (XLi) (f) of the certified standing orders of the Corporation which speaks about holding deficit cash balance exceeding rupees 10 and also misappropriation; that the disciplinary authority passed an order of dismissal allegedly considering the past records, if so, it should have been mentioned in the second show cause notice, but without doing so, considering the alleged antecedents, awarding punishment of dismissal from service is illegal, which was not properly considered by the labour court and prayed for allowing the writ petition.