Shyam Sunder vs Delhi Transport Corporation

J.M. Malik, J.—The Labour Court vide award dated 13th April, 2007 upheld the removal of Shyam Sunder, petitioner/workman, who was working as conductor under the DTC. It was further held that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief from the Court.

On 23rd July, 1994 the petitioner was charge-sheeted as follows. On 14th July, 1994 he was posted as a conductor in Bus No. DL-1P-9451. The bus was checked by the checking officials while the bus was going from Delhi to Panipat route. It transpired that seven passengers in three groups were not issued the tickets though they had paid the full fare to the petitioner. The petitioner admitted his fault in the presence of passengers and surrendered seven unpunched tickets. A domestic inquiry was conducted and the petitioner was removed from the services.

Before the Labour Court he called into question the above-said inquiry proceedings. According to him, principles of natural justice were not observed during inquiry and the findings of the inquiry officer were perverse. He claimed re-employment with continuity in service and full back wages. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court on 13th April, 2007, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the prayer that the award dated 13th April, 2007 be quashed and he be reinstated along with consequential benefits.

I have heard the counsel for the parties at the time of admission of this case. The learned Counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions. The petitioner was checked at Murthal as well and there was no necessity of checking him time and again. Secondly, no excess amount was found in the bag of the petitioner. Moreover, there were 59 passengers in the above-said bus. The statement of none of the witnesses was recorded for the reasons best known to the checking staff. The petitioner was made to sign the statement on the back of the challan fraudulently. The learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner was not in a position to know about all these facts and circumstances because certain points were not explained to him. He also pleaded that the punishment is disproportionate. Lastly, he drew my attention towards the statement of Sushil Jacob, Inquiry Officer, Dy. Vigilance Officer, I.P. Estate, DTC, who appeared as MW-1 before the Labour Court. In his cross-examination, he stated that there was no Presenting Officer in the present inquiry of the Management. He volunteered that there was no rule of Presenting Officer in DTC. He further deposed that nobody was representing the Management and he himself had to take the signatures of the witnesses present on each and every day of the inquiry. He admitted that he had not given copies of the unpunched tickets, challan, way bill, way pouchers, past record of the employee, charge sheet, report dated 14th July, 1994.

All these arguments have left no impression upon this Court. In a recent authority reported in Ramesh Chand Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, while placing reliance on an Apex Court authority, it was held,

In The Workmen Employed in B and C Mills, Madras Vs. The Management of B and C Mills, Madras, it has been held by the Supreme Court that principles of natural justice are not violated when the Presiding Officer asks questions, elicits answers and clarifications from witnesses.

It is thus clear that the absence of Presenting Officer does not cut much ice.

It is well-settled that the ignorance of law is no excuse. The petitioner signed the statement with open eyes. By no stretch of imagination it can be said that he was made to sign his statement fraudulently. The admission of facts comes from the horse''s mouth itself. It is clear that he affixed signatures thereon of his own volition. The admission is free from ambiguity or obscurity.

This is not a part of the duty of the checking officer to record the statement of 95 passengers. His own statement if proved to be recorded without ill will or malice is more than sufficient. Counsel for the petitioner himself admitted that the checking staff did not have any enmity or hostility with the petitioner. If somebody is to be entangled falsely there should be some motive. In the absence of such motive all the allegations leveled against the checking officer pale into insignificance. The Court is bound to take a down to earth view. No passenger likes to become a witness under such circumstances. Moreover, the absence of passengers does not go to whittle down the value of the disciplinary report.

Again, there was no bar for the checking staff to check the petitioner time and again.

The trial court noted that there were seven adverse entries already existed in the record of the petitioner. He had committed the misconduct of similar nature due to which his next due increment was stopped with cumulative effect.

In Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh Vs. Krishan Behari and others, , the Apex Court held that even if the amount misappropriated is small, the act of misappropriation is relevant and hence, the order of dismissal was justified.

Similar view was taken in Tika Ram and Sons Ltd. v. Their Workman (1960) I LLJ 524 (SC). In that case it was observed that that the act of dishonesty or fraud would constitute misconduct of serious nature warranting punishment of dismissal.

In U.P. SRTC v. Basudeo Chaudhary, (1997) 11 SCC 370 , the Supreme Court upheld the removal of a Conductor from service on the ground that the misconduct was an attempt to cause loss of Rs. 65/- to the corporation by issuing tickets to 23 passengers for a sum of Rs. 2.35 but recovering higher amounts.

In V. Ramana Vs. A.P.S.R.T.C. and Others, it was held that a bus conductor holds a post of trust and as such if guilty of breach of trust, he should be given the punishment of removal from service as imposed after holding disciplinary proceedings. It was further held that the Court should not interfere with the administrative decision of the employer unless it was illogical or suffered from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the Court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic as per moral standards. Similar view was taken in an authority reported in Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) Vs. A.T. Mane, .

The Apex Court in a recent authority reported in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Dehradun Vs. Suresh Pal, recorded his satisfaction that the petitioner had been found squarely guilty of misconduct of not issuing tickets to the passengers as found in the domestic enquiry. It was held that the punishment of dismissal was proper. It was further held,

Therefore, in such cases the incumbent should weeded out as far as possible and same has been upheld by the Labour Court. We are firmly of the view that such instances should not be dealt with lightly so as to pollute the atmosphere in the Corporation and other co-workers.

In another case reported in U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Ram Kishan Arora, , the bus conductor alleged to have realised fare from 35 passengers traveling in the bus without issuing any traveling ticket to them. Punishment of removal by disciplinary authority was upheld.

Similar view was taken in Jaipal Singh v. DTC 2007 (98) DRJ 213 and U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Mahendra Nath Tiwari.

In the light of the discussion above, I see no merit in the writ petition. The same is Therefore dismissed in limini.