Surinder Kumar vs Delhi Transport Corporation

Pradeep Kumar, Member (A)

Applicant was working as a Conductor in DTC on regular basis since 1984. A charge-sheet was issued on 16.04.2013. It was alleged that the Traffic Inspector has checked up the bus on 14.03.2013 when the applicant was working as a Conductor in the said bus and it was found that a group of 08 lady passengers  had  boarded  the  bus  from  whom  Rs.40/-  was collected by the Conductor but the tickets were not issued.

Another charge in this charge-sheet is to the effect that 30 number of tickets for Rs.10 denomination each and 20 tickets for Rs.15 denomination each were sold by him earlier, but the cash for the same was not deposited with the DTC. The applicant was issued a challan no.24892. The leader of the group of 08 ladies also recorded their statements on the back of challan.

The applicant submitted his reply to this charge-sheet. Thereafter an enquiry was held wherein the specific charge that he did not deposit the cash for 30 tickets of Rs.10 each and 20 tickets of Rs.15 each sold earlier, was proved. A show cause notice dated 13/23.01.2014 was issued to the applicant as to why punishment of removal from service be not imposed. The applicant submitted a reply on 03.02.2014 and thereafter punishment of removal from service was imposed on 21.03.2014.

The applicant preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority on 07.04.2014. This appeal was also rejected vide orders as communicated to him on 05.06.2014.

The applicant is aggrieved on the said punishment and preferred the instant OA. It has been pleaded that the details in respect of non-depositing of the tickets sold earlier, i.e., dates etc., are not specified in the charge-sheet. It was also pleaded that the statements of the leader of the 08 ladies is not reliable in view of the evidence given by one of the passenger travelling in the bus.

Per contra, the respondents opposed the OA. It was averred that the applicant was granted full opportunity to defend himself and no prejudice has been caused to him. It was also pleaded that while the enquiry report has held the charge of non-depositing of cash as proven, the reply submitted by the applicant was completely silent on this above aspect.

The respondents relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. B.S. Hullikatti, [Appeal (Civil) No.784/2001 decided on 22.01.2001] wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:

"On the facts as found by the Labour Court and the High Court, it is evident that there was a short-charging of the fare by the respondent from as many as 35 passengers. We are informed that the respondent had been in service as a Conductor for nearly 22 years. It is difficult to believe that he did not know what was the correct fare which was to be charged. Further-more, the appellant had during the disciplinary proceedings taken into account the fact that the respondent had been found guilty for as many as 36 times on different dates. Be that as it may, the principle of res ipsa loquitur, namely, the facts speak for themselves, is clearly applicable in the instant case. Charging 50 paise per ticket less from as many as 35 passengers could only be to get financial benefit by the Conductor. this act was either dishonest or was so grossly negligent that the respondent was not fit to be retained as a Conductor because such action or inaction of his is bound to result in financial loss to the appellant-Corporation.

It is misplaced sympathy by the Labour Courts in such cases when on checking it is fund that the Bus Conductors have either not issued tickets to a large number of passengers, though they should have, or have issued tickets of a lower denomination knowing fully well the correct fare to be charged. It is the responsibility of the Bus Conductors to collect the correct fare from the passengers and deposit the same with the Company. they act in a fiduciary capacity and it would be a case of gross misconduct if knowingly they do not collect any fare or the correct amount of fare."

4.1 The respondents also relied upon another judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh, [AIR 1977 SC 1512], wherein the Court has held that a domestic inquiry can take into consideration all materials logically probative for a prudent mind and that there is no allergy of hearsay evidence, provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. It was further averred on the scope of permissible interference with the conclusions of a domestic inquiry, the Hon'ble Apex Court has said in the same paragraph that what has to be seen is whether there was some evidence or was it a case of no evidence. It was further held that as long as there was some evidence, sufficiency thereof in proof of a finding by a domestic Tribunal is beyond scrutiny. Operative paragraph of the judgment by the Hon'ble Apex Court reads as follows:

"4. It is well settled that in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply. Ail materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. It is true that departmental authorities and administrative tribunals must be careful in evaluating such material and should not glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not relevant under the Indian Evidence Act. For this proposition it is not necessary to cite decisions nor text books, although we have been taken through case law and other authorities by counsel on both sides. The essence of a judicial approach is objectivity, exclusion of extraneous materials or considerations and observance of rules of natural justice. Of course, fair play is the basis and if perversity or arbitrariness, bias or surrender of independence of judgment vitiate the conclusions reached, such finding, even though of a domestic tribunal, cannot be held good. However, the courts below mis-directed themselves, perhaps, in insisting that passengers who had come in and gone out should be chased and brought before the tribunal before a valid finding could be recorded. The 'residuum' rule to which counsel for the respondent referred, based upon certain passengers from American jurisprudence does not go to that extent nor does the passage from Halsbury insist on such rigid requirement. The simple point is, was there some evidence or was there no evidence not in the sense of the technical rules governing regular court proceedings but in a fair commonsense way as men of understanding and worldly wisdom will accept. Viewed in this way, sufficiency of evidence in proof of the finding by a domestic tribunal is beyond scrutiny. Absence of any evidence in support of a ending is certainty available for the court to look into because it amounts to an error of law apparent on the record. We find, in this case, that the evidence of Chamanlal, Inspector of the flying squad, is some evidence which has relevance to the charge levelled against the respondent. Therefore, we are unable to hold that the order is invalid on that ground."

4.2 The respondents also relied upon a judgment by the Hon'ble Apex Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Suresh Pal, [AIR 2006 SC 3227], wherein the Court has held as under:

"Normally, courts do not substitute the punishment unless they are shocking disproportionate if the punishment is interfered or substituted lightly in the punishment in exercise of their extraordinary jurisdiction then it will amount to abuse of the process of court. If such kind of misconduct is dealt with lightly and courts start substituting the lighter punishment in exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution then it will give a wrong signal in the Society. All the State Road Transport Corporations in .the country have gone in red because of the misconduct of such kind of incumbents, therefore, it is the time that misconduct should be dealt with iron hands and not leniently."

4.3 It was further pleaded that the Appellate Authority, namely, Regional Manager (West) had passed a detailed order and the final conclusion of the same was communicated to the applicant on 05.06.2014 by the Depot Manager. It was accordingly pleaded that the OA is without merit and the same is required to be dismissed.

4.4 The respondents also submitted past record in respect of the applicant for the period from the years 1989 to 2013 and brought out that in the past also there had been multiple instances of indiscipline, rowdiness and alcoholism, wherein many punishments were imposed upon the applicant.

4.5 It was pleaded that non-deposit of cash is loss to DTC and such employees cannot be kept in service and OA be dismissed.

The matter has been heard at length. Shri Anil Mittal, learned counsel with Ms. Komal Aggarwal represented the applicant. Shri Sushant Sharma, learned counsel for Shri Manish Garg represented the respondents.

The instant case is one wherein the Traffic Inspector during his routine check, had found that an amount of Rs.40 was collected from 08 lady passengers. However, the tickets were not issued to them. In this check it was also found that a total of 30 tickets of Rs.10 denomination each and total of 20 tickets of Rs.15 denomination each were sold earlier but the relevant cash was not deposited with the DTC and this has resulted into loss to the Corporation. The enquiry proceedings had clearly proven this charge of non-depositing of the cash.

It is seen that applicant's reply to the said charge-sheet before such punishment was awarded is completely silent on this aspect of non-depositing of the cash even though enquiry report was supplied to him.

The applicant's plea that specific details in respect of non-depositing of the cash like the dates on which the tickets were sold etc. were not communicated and hence he was unable to make any reply to the same, is not acceptable. The charge-sheet has a specific clause to this effect and the enquiry proceedings have specifically proven this charge and, therefore, it was enjoined upon the applicant to defend himself in case he had a valid defence available to him. Since he did not mention anything in this regard in his defence, this counter plea is without merit and it cannot be taken now.

The applicant's plea that the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority are non-speaking orders have also been seen. It is noted that the orders passed by the Appellate Authority are quite in detail and the final decision of rejection of the appeal was communicated on 05.06.2014. Accordingly, the plea put-forth by the applicant that the Appellate Authority did not pass a speaking order is also not acceptable.

This Tribunal cannot sit in judgment of Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority which was based upon material evidence and enquiry where charges were proven and they were not refuted at relevant point of time when specific opportunity was extended to applicant to present his defence. It is the view of this Tribunal that there was enough circumstantial evidence to prove the charge. Accordingly the OA is without merit and the same is dismissed. No costs.