Delhi District Court
Corporation vs . Satya Narain" on 14 March, 2007
1 ID No. 800/06/03
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ALOK AGGARWAL
P. O. LABOUR COURT XVIII :KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF :
ID No. 800/06/03
Delhi Transport Corporation
I.P Estate, New Delhi ..........Management
Versus
Shri Jagdish Parsad
S/o late Shri Sumer Singh
R/o B-12 , East Gokulpuri,
Delhi
..........Workman
ORDER :
By way of this order, I propose to dispose of the preliminary Issue framed by my Ld. Predecessor on 18.10.2004 in the following terms :
ISSUE :
Whether the Inquiry conducted by the Management was not fair & proper, and if so, to what effect?
2. The matter has come up before the Court by way of reference No. F.24(2104)/2002-Lab/4861-65 dated 18.6.2003 made by the appropriate Government for adjudication between the 2 ID No. 800/06/03 parties.
3. In his statement of claim, the workman has alleged that he was employed with the Management as Conductor w.e.f. 31.8.1979 . He was issued a charge sheet on 26.4.1995 in respect of an incident on 08.4.1995 when he was allegedly found to have issued a bogus ticket to a passenger and to have charging Rs.22/- for the same. He replied to the charge sheet but an inquiry was conducted against him. The workman has alleged that the Inquiry Officer was biased and he found the workman guilty of the charges. Consequently, the workman was removed from services vide an order dated 21.11.1995 .
4. In its Written Statement, the Management has defended the inquiry and has contended that the same was conducted in a fair manner following all the rules and regulations and principles of natural justice and providing full opportunity to the workman to defend himself. The opportunity was availed by the workman at each stage. After receipt of the inquiry report, the workman was issued a showcause notice dated 08.8.1995 and finding his reply to the same not sufficient to exonerate him, he was removed from service on 21.11.1995 under Clause 15(2) VI of the DRTA (Condition of Appointment & Service) Regulations, 1952 . The workman also 3 ID No. 800/06/03 preferred an appeal against the order of removal and the same was considered by the Appellate Authority but was rejected.
5. It was on these pleadings that the above said preliminary issue was framed. The workman filed his own affidavit as WW1 and the Management examined Shri Sanjay Saxena - Depot Manager as MW1. The Management also filed the copy of the inquiry proceedings in the Court. Both the witnesses have been duly cross- examined by the Authorised Representatives for both the parties.
6. I have heard Shri DN Vohra , AR of the workman and Shri DP Sharma on behalf of the Management on the Preliminary Issue and have gone through the evidence on record with their help. My findings on the Issue are as under :
PRELIMINARY ISSUE No. 1 :
7. The charge against the workman , as per the charge sheet dated 01.4.1995 is that on 08.4.1995 , while he was on duty at Bus No. 9524 from Shamli to Delhi, the said bus was inspected by a checking squad at Mandola at about 3.25 PM . It was found that the workman had issued a bogus ticket to an illiterate passenger and had collected Rs.22/- as fare from him. On confronting the workman with the said passenger, the workman admitted his guilt and in token thereof, signed the ticket at the back . He also handed 4 ID No. 800/06/03 over a fresh ticket of Rs.22/- to the checking staff. It was also alleged that on checking the cash available with the workman , he was found in possession of excess money amounting to Rs.90.20 . The charge sheet also states that the previous record of the workman show that he was used to committing these irregularities.
8. In his reply to the charge sheet which has been proved as Ex.WW1/M2, the workman has denied the charges. The inquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Officer Shri Avtar Singh Bains.
9. The workman has challenged the inquiry broadly on the following grounds :
1). There was no Presenting Officer of the Management and the Inquiry Officer himself acted as such .
2). MW1 was not present at the time of inquiry and the inquiry proceedings have not been properly proved.
3). The workman was not asked if he required assistance of a co-worker, except on the first day of inquiry.
4). The passenger, who was allegedly issued a bogus ticket, was not examined by the Inquiry Officer.
10. Ld. AR for the Management has sought to refute the contentions of the workman by arguing that it is not necessary for 5 ID No. 800/06/03 the Management to have a Presenting Officer as the same has caused no prejudice to the workman . He has also argued that it is now well settled that in such cases, the evidence of the affected passengers is not mandatorily required. The workman was asked on the first date of inquiry if he required the assistance of a co-worker but he declined. Thereafter the workman has himself cross- examined all the witnesses. The Ld. AR for Management has submitted that there is no requirement that the workman is to be asked the same on each date of inquiry.
11. So far as the first objection of the workman is concerned, I do not find any principles of natural justice violated by the Management not appointing a Presenting Officer. The workman has not been able to show any prejudice that has been caused to him by the absence of a Presenting Officer of the Management. If the charge sheet and the statements of the witnesses are supplied by the Management to the Inquiry Officer, there is no bar to the Inquiry Officer proceeding with the inquiry. The requirement of Natural Justice is that the workman should have adequate opportunity to putforth his defence and the absence of a Presenting Officer of Management does not by itself amount to any denial of the said opportunity.
6 ID No. 800/06/03
12. Coming to the second objection of the workman , MW1 has deposed that the Inquiry Officer Shri AS Bains has already died. MW1 Shri Sanjay Saxena , who was the Disciplinary Authority of the workman at the relevant time, has produced the inquiry report and has identified the signatures of the Inquiry Officer. Moreover, the workman is himself relying upon the same inquiry report and proceedings in order to point out discrepancies therein and can not, therefore, contend that the inquiry proceedings are not proved.
13. During the course of arguments, the Ld. AR of the workman has not disputed that the workman was explained the procedure of inquiry on the first date and was specifically asked if he wished to have the assistance of a co-worker, but he had declined. Generally speaking , the Inquiry Officer is suppose to explain the procedure of whole inquiry only once. If the workman opts for a representation by a co-worker, he has to be given an opportunity for the same, for the whole of the inquiry. There is no general rule or any requirement of natural justice that he should be asked so on each date of hearing. The workman has himself cross- examined all the three witnesses of the Management, who were members of the checking squad. After closing of the evidence, the workman was asked if he wanted to produce any evidence in 7 ID No. 800/06/03 defence but he declined and stated that his reply to the charge sheet may be taken as his defence. He also stated that he was never confronted with the passenger who had allegedly received the bogus ticket and that the excess money found in his possession was the balance which was to be returned to some of the passengers. This shows that the workman has no ground to complain of denial of any opportunity of defending himself.
14. With regard to the allegations that the concerned passenger was not examined, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated more than once that in such cases, there is no requirement of examination of the witnesses since the strict rules of evidence do not apply to domestic inquiries. Reference may be made in this regard to
1). AIR 1977 SUPREME COURT 1512 "State of Haryana v.
Rattan Singh"
2). 2003 LAB IC 1026 "Karnatka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Satya Narain"
3). Divisional Controller, KSRTC Vs. AT Mane 2004 X AD (SC) 228
4). Davender Swamy Vs. KSRTC (2002) 9 SCC 644
15. The said judgments have been followed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in several cases, the latest one being DTC Vs. Tejpal (W.P) (C) No. 5985 of 2003, decided on 03.1.2007 . The 8 ID No. 800/06/03 relevant portion of Paragraph No. 6 of the said judgment may be reproduced here thus :
6. In the present case, the petitioners had examined the checking staff before the Enquiry Officer as well as before the Industrial Tribunal. The checking staff had categorically proved that they had checked the passengers getting down from the bus when it reached Uchana Stand. They were already there at Uchana bus stand for checking. The passengers were without tickets and told they were not issued tickets despite collecting fare. They were confronted with the conductor and the conductor admitted non issuance of tickets despite collecting fare and gave unpunched tickets to the checking staff. There can be no other method of checking, which can be adopted by the checking staff for checking without ticket passengers at bus stops and to see if tickets were being issued in the bus by the conductor or not. A checking staff is supposed to check as many buses as possible & to keep check on the rampant corruption which is prevalent in DTC. It is, therefore, always advisable for the checking staff to stand at the bus stand and check the passengers who are getting down from the bus.
The statement of the checking staff that the passengers told that they had paid fare to the conductor and were not issued tickets cannot be considered as inadmissible. Even if, it is hearsay evidence, in terms of Supreme Court judgment in State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh (supra) there should be no allergy in accepting hearsay evidence if, hearsay evidence is relevant and cogent. The passengers who travel in inter-state buses of DTC need not be of Delhi and may be of 9 ID No. 800/06/03 different places far-away from Delhi. They cannot be expected to come to Delhi and participate in an enquriy where one is called time and again before enquiry officer and then before Tribunal because of the attitude which is prevalent these days in Courts and Enquiries. This would be too much to expect. There is no reason why the checking staff should not be believed. If, there are two statements one given by the conductor in his own support and other given by the checking staff, the Enquiry Officer has to chose which of the two statements is more reliable. Conductor is the person who is facing charges and is interested to save himself while the checking staff are the officers of the petitioner on duty, who perform their duty in order to see that the employees of the petitioners do not misappropriate the money of the petitioner and do not cause loss to the petitioner. Unless there are allegations of personal enmity or malafides made against the checking staff and malafides or enmity is proved by the errant and delinquent conductor, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of the checking staff. The Courts must keep in mind that the principle 'Let hundred guilty go scot free lest one innocent may be punished' is not applicable in enquiries and proceedings before the Tribunal.
16. In Horam Singh Vs. DTC reported as 2006 VII AD (Delhi) 642, also the Hon'ble High Court has quoted extensively from the aforementioned judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and has come to a conclusion that the evidence of the inspecting team is sufficient and there is no 10 ID No. 800/06/03 justification in the court requiring the evidence of the concerned passengers.
17. Ld. AR for Management has however, also argued that as per the Management's own circulars dated 13.10.1965 and 12.2.1973, it is mandatory for the Inquiry Officer to examine the passengers and also, to ask the workman on each date of hearing whether he required a defence assistant. He has argued that the circulars are akin to Standing Orders of the Corporation and have a force of law as per the Delhi Laws Amendment Act 1977 .
18. However, similar departmental circulars have been dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Rattan Shah (supra) in the following words :
Reliance was placed, as earlier stated, on the non-compliance with the departmental instruction that statements of passengers should be recorded by inspectors. These are instructions of prudence, not rules that bind or vitiate in the violation. In this case, the Inspector tried to get the statements but the passengers declined, the psychology of the latter 11 ID No. 800/06/03 in such circumstances being understandable, although may not be approved. We cannot hold that merely because statements of passengers were not recorded the order that followed was invalid. Likewise, the re-evaluation of the evidence on the strength of co-conductor's testimony is a matter not for the court but for the administrative tribunal. In conclusion, we do not think the courts below were right in over-turning the finding of the domestic tribunal.
19. Similar are the observations of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court which are specifically on the circulars issued by the DTC in yet another case titled as Mahavir Singh Vs. DTC in WP(C) No.19046/2006 decided on 07.2.2007 . Para 6 of the judgment may be reproduced here as under :
6. In Rattan Singh's case(Supra), the Supreme Court had considered the applicability of circulars and had observed that the circulars of DTC do not have the force of law. It is settled law that only those rules have statutory force, that are framed under the authority of a statute. Those rules and circulars that are framed without an authority of statute, have no force of law. The circulars of DTC are n the form of advise to the employees. They do not have 12 ID No. 800/06/03 mandatory character and force of law unless they are framed under some statutory rule-making powers.
20. In view of the law clearly laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court, the contention of the workman is baseless and is hereby rejected. There is no dispute that the workman was given due notice of the inquiry and was explained the charges in detail, he had participated in the inquiry and had cross-examined the witnesses. There is no denial of opportunity to him to defend himself and therefore, I conclude that the inquiry was conducted in a fair & proper manner. The challenge to the inquiry, therefore, fails and the preliminary Issue is decided against the workman . ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 14th day of March 2007 (ALOK AGGARWAL) PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT XVIII KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI