Thangaraj vs The Management & Anr

This writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the order passed by the 2nd respondent, dated 20.04.2009 and to direct the 1st respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity of service and backwages.

The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows; (a) The petitioner was working as a Conductor under the first respondent. On 30.04.1996, when he was on duty plying from Karaikudi to Trichy in the bus bearing Registration No.008, the checking Inspector of the Corporation stopped the bus at Lena Villaku and checked the tickets from each passenger in the bus. It was detected by the checking team that the petitioner collected ticket for a sum of Rs.6.40 from a passenger, who travelled from Karaikudi to Pudukkottai, but the petitioner had issued only Rs.3.50 valid ticket, thereby the petitioner has misappropriated a sum of Rs.2.90 and caused loss to the Corporation. Therefore, the first respondent / Corporation issued a charge memo dated 06.05.1996, for which the petitioner has also submitted his explanation. Not being satisfied with the said explanation, the first respondent / Corporation appointed an enquiry officer. The enquiry officer submitted his report on 14.08.1996 stating that charges levelled against him are all proved. After issuing second show cause notice, the first respondent / Corporation dismissed the petitioner from service on 20.09.1996.

(b) The petitioner has approached the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Tiruchirapalli for conciliation. But the same could not succeed. Therefore, the petitioner has filed a petition before the second respondent / the Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli in I.D.No.16/2004 challenging the order of dismissal. The second respondent had dismissed the said petition on 20.04.2000. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition before this Court for the aforesaid prayer.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the second respondent has failed to consider the evidences of the witnesses and to see that the findings of the enquiry is perverse. He would further submit that the Corporation has adopted different yardsticks in awarding punishment for identical charges. The Corporation has not awarded punishment of dismissal for a number of persons involved in the charge of misappropriation. The punishment awarded to the petitioner is excessive and disproportionate to the charges levelled against him. Therefore, the order passed by the second respondent is liable to be dismissed.

The learned counsel for the first respondent / Corporation submitted that earlier the petitioner had been punished on 4 occasions for misconduct and also he was dismissed from service and subsequently, reinstated. After reinstatement, while the petitioner was on duty on 30.04.1996, the Checking Inspectors by surprise inspection found that the petitioner has again committed such misconduct. After due enquiry and also considering the past records of service, the petitioner was dismissed from service. The second respondent has also affirmed the same. The petitioner has filed this writ petition with vague allegations. Therefore, the impugned orders need not be interfered with.

Keeping the submissions made on either side, I have carefully gone through the entire materials available on record.

In a case of this nature, the scope of judicial review is very limited. The Court can only see as to whether there is any violation of the principles of natural justice and as to whether the award of punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the charges. The Court cannot reappraise the entire evidence and substitute its view.

It is seen that the second respondent has passed a detailed order after analysing the entire records. A perusal of the entire records would go to show that the respondents, after giving sufficient opportunity, has passed the orders. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is a violation of the principles of natural justice, it is seen that the petitioner has failed to use the opportunity. Even for the second show cause notice, he has not submitted his reply. Thus, there is no violation of principles of natural justice.

Here, in this case, it is stated by the first respondent that earlier on four occasions, the petitioner had committed similar misconducts and he was dismissed from service and subsequently, reinstated. Nowhere the petitioner denied the same. It is also stated by the first respondent that now the petitioner has again committed the same misconduct. The petitioner could not disprove the same. It is seen that considering the petitioner''s past service of records and present conduct, the first respondent has passed the order of dismissal, after following the due procedure. After analysing the entire records, the second respondent has also affirmed the same. Leniency or sympathy cannot be shown to a habitual offender. Therefore, I am of the view that the order of dismissal passed by the first respondent and affirmed by the second respondent cannot be stated to be disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner.

At this juncture, this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate to refer to a decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. B.S.Hullikatti, reported in 2001-I-LLJ 725 (SC), wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that in such cases where the bus conductors carry passengers without ticket or issue tickets at a less rate than the proper rate, the said acts would inter alia amount to either being a case of dishonesty or of gross negligence and such conductors are not fit to be retained in service, because such inaction or action on the part of the conductors results in financial loss to the Road Transport Corporation. This Court was firmly of the opinion that in cases like the present one, orders of dismissal should not be set aside.

The above dictum laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Admittedly, the petitioner was holding a position of trust where honest and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning. Misconduct in such cases has to be dealt with iron hands. Therefore, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. Absolutely, there is no merit in the writ petition. This Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the second respondent.

In the result, this writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.