DANDAPANI MULI Vs. P O INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL BBSR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As per the writ petition, the Petitioner was working as conductor under the Orissa State Road Transport Corporation (in short 'OSRTC') in Keonjhar Zone during the year 1996. On 19.10.1996 at about 9.20 A.M. while he was conducting Keonjhar-Sambalpur (UP) bus bearing registration No. OSJ-1202 it is alleged that on signal the bus was stopped at a distance of 1/4th K.M. before Kalamati. The checking squad consisting of A.T.M. (Vigilance) OSRTC and two traffic inspectors, namely Sanat Kumar Mishra and Fakir Charan Panigrahi entered into the bus and took possession of the ticket book. On counting, 59 passengers were found to be there in the bus, but the Petitioner had issued only 27 full and four half tickets. In other words 32 passengers were found traveling without ticket. Accordingly, the A.T.M. (Vigilance) prepared the checking report in presence of the Petitioner and asked him to put his signature there, but he refused to do so. Thereafter, A.T.M. (Vigilance) reported the matter to the District Transport Manager (A), OSRTC, Keonjhar (disciplinary authority) on receipt of which he put the Petitioner under suspension on 2.11.1996 and framed charge against him under two counts. Charge No. 1, which is the main charge, reads as follows:

(2.) An explanation was called for from the Petitioner to explain the above charges. In his explanation, the Petitioner, inter alia, conteded that the bus in question was checked at Kalamati bus stand and not 1/4th K.M. before it as alleged, just before a private bus which was competing with the bus conducted by the Petitioner, suffered breakdown at Kalamati and a Kirtan Dal got down from that bus and forcibly entered into the bus of the Petitioner. Since the explanation submitted by the Petitioner was held not to be satisfactory, the then Asst. Manager (Administration), Keonjhar was appointed as enquiry officer to enquire into the matter. Accordingly, he enquired into the matter and in course of enquiry examined the A.T.M. (Vigilance), Sri Fakir Charan Panigrahi, Transport Inspector, Sri Ratnakar Maharana, the driver of the bus in question, Akshya Kumar Mishra, an independent witness and the delinquent. After completion of enquiry he submitted his report holding as follows:

(3.) The disciplinary authority different with the view of the enquiry officer in respect of charge No. 1 and held that it was fully proved. So, he dismissed the Petitioner from service vide order dated 7.11.1997 and treated the period under suspension as such. Since I.D. Case Nos. 19 of 1989 and 45 of 1991, in which the Petitioner was concerned, were pending before the Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar the Disciplinary Authority filed an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act before the said Tribunal seeking approval of his action in dismissing the Petitioner. The said application was registered as I.D. Misc. Case No. 51 of 1997 and the Petitioner was asked to file show cause. In his show cause the Petitioner took the same plea as he had taken in reply to the charge memo. Four witnesses were examined on behalf of the Management as against only one witness on behalf of the Petitioner before the tribunal. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned tribunal, vide order dated 21.5.2003 held that there was no infringement of the principle of natural justice, while holding the domestic enquiry against the Petitioner and the statutory compliance as prescribed under Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act and accordingly approved the action of the management in dismissing the Petitioner from service and allowed I.D. Misc. Case.