Delhi High Court
Shri Rajinder Kumar vs Dtc on 9 September, 2013
Author: S.Ravindra Bhat
Bench: S. Ravindra Bhat, Najmi Waziri
$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% DECIDED ON: 09.09.2013
+ LPA 654/2013
CM APPL.13985/2013
SHRI RAJINDER KUMAR ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. M. Hussain, Advocate.
versus
DTC ..... Respondent
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT)
1. The appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 22.01.2013 by the learned Single Judge dismissing his writ petition.
2. The appellant was appointed by the respondent management Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) as a Conductor on 08.03.1978. He was issued with the chargesheet on 5.12.2000 alleging that on 7.11.2000 in the course of surprise checking, it was discovered that five ticketless passengers were travelling in the interstate bus journey.
Those passengers had claimed that they had paid the full fare to the appellant. The enquiry initiated pursuant to the chargesheet concluded that the charges levelled were proved and the report was furnished to the appellant. Thereafter, disciplinary authority by an LPA-654/2013 Page 1 order dated 19.07.2002 removed the petitioner/appellant from service. The appellant raised an industrial dispute which was referred on 19.09.2003 by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi to the Labour Court for adjudication. On 03.10.2006, Labour Court, upon having examined the facts of proceedings and having assessed the fairness of enquiry, held in favour of the management. The conclusion recorded by the Labour Court was that there were no vitiating factors such as violation of principles of natural justice or violation of prescribed rules and that the enquiry was conducted in a fair and objective manner.
3. Subsequently, on the basis of the evidence led, the Labour Court after considering the prescribed standards applicable to Section-11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 concluded that the penalty was not disproportionate; the Award rejected the applicant's claim.
4. In these circumstances, the appellant approached the learned Single Judge complaining that the Award had not appreciated that the basic facts alleged against the petitioner were not proved. The petitioner's first contention about the fairness of the enquiry proceedings was rejected by the learned Single Judge who took notice of the order of 03.10.2006 and further noticed that the Labour Court had taken into account binding judgment of the Supreme Court as well as considered the entire records. The learned Single Judge also rejected the appellant's contentions with regard to the concerned passengers not being produced in the enquiry and relied upon the decision in State of Haryana & Anr. v. Rattan Singh, (1997) 2 SCC LPA-654/2013 Page 2 491, for this purpose. Likewise, learned Single Judge rejected the alleged disproportionality of punishment noticing that the petitioner/appellant had been charged and found guilty on three other previous occasions for the same misconduct.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged the same grounds which had been argued before the learned Single Judge. It was submitted that the checking team which inspected the bus in fact did not even care to notice the amount which was with the appellant. It was further argued that the penalty was extremely disproportionate and completely overlooked the fact that applicant had worked for twenty years.
6. This Court at the outset notices that the appellant is asking it to reappreciate the facts. The domestic enquiry in the circumstances of the case was held to have been conducted in a fair and impartial manner as is evidenced by the reasoning of the Labour Court in its order dated 03.10.2007. So far as the alleged disproportionality of the penalty is concerned, this Court is satisfied that the approach of the Labour Court, which was reviewed by the learned Single Judge, was correct. Although, the appellant did serve the DTC for 20 years, the fact remains that on three previous occasions, he had committed identical misconduct but was let off with lighter punishment or warning. Indulging in the same misconduct the fourth time round proved to be his undoing, in these circumstances, it cannot be said that the penalty was grossly disproportionate as to warrant exercise of discretion under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. So far as the allegation that the inspecting team did not even check LPA-654/2013 Page 3 the amounts lying with the petitioner/appellant is concerned, these were the aspects gone into by the Labour Court as well as by the learned Single Judge.
7. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the appeal lacks merit; it is accordingly dismissed along with the pending application.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT (JUDGE) NAJMI WAZIRI (JUDGE) SEPTEMBER 09, 2013 /vks/ LPA-654/2013 Page 4