Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. In the reply to charge-sheet submitted by petitioner, he admits this fact that he was working as Conductor in Bus No. UP-81/9328 on 25.04.2001, when bus was running from Babrala to Delhi route. When bus reached Shikarpur, 27 passengers boarded and when they were boarding, Sri Manoj Kumar Trivedi, Assistant Regional Manager, Bulandshahr along with checking squad came. Petitioner asked checking team that let passengers sit in the bus and thereafter petitioner may be allowed to issue tickets and then checking be conducted but checking team snatched Ticket Book from petitioner and arbitrarily issued tickets and under threat obtained signature of petitioner on the inspection note. He alleged that Assistant Regional Manager, who conducted checking has concealed the fact that bus was at halt and not running which was got stopped and thereafter checked. He further said that checking was made at Shikarpur and not while bus was reaching Bulandshahr.

10. Thus, preparation of Inspection Report mentioning the fact that checking was conducted when bus was reaching at Bulandshahr and passengers were found without ticket and that checking report was signed by petitioner are the facts which are admitted by petitioner. He, however, has disputed contents of inspection note.

11. In these circumstances, onus shifted upon petitioner to show that contents of checking report were not correct and his signature was obtained under threat for which he did not adduce any evidence whatsoever. Even Driver of bus who was in a position to give correct facts, was not produced by petitioner in support of his defence whereby he challenged correctness of the facts stated in checking report which admittedly contained petitioner's signature.

12. The question as to how oral enquiry would be conducted depends on facts of each case.

13. It cannot be disputed when a charge is completely denied, Employer has to prove the charge first and thereafter employee would be required to adduce his defence to disprove the allegations, but when some part of the incident is admitted that the manner in which it happened is disputed by employee, the fact given by employee in his defence is to be proved by him.

14. In the present case, a checking report was prepared mentioning the factum that petitioner was carrying passengers without ticket and thereby caused loss to UPSRTC. This checking report was duly signed by petitioner. This document was an evidence relied in the charge-sheet. Since in reply, aforesaid document itself was not disputed by petitioner, instead his stand was that the facts stated in the report do not depict correct facts and contain some incorrect facts, hence, onus was upon petitioner to show that checking report contained incorrect facts.

15. One of the best witness which would have been able to make his statement on this aspect, whether checking was conducted when bus was reaching Bulandshahr or Shikarpur and whether passengers were boarding the bus at Shikarpur when checking was made or passengers had actually travelled distance from Shikarpur and while reaching Bulandshahr, checking was made and they were found without ticket, could have been got verified by petitioner through Driver of bus but he made no such attempt. Since documents of department, as such, was not denied but correctness thereof was denied, hence, non-examination of any oral evidence on behalf of Employer makes no difference in the facts of this case and onus itself shifted upon petitioner to show that facts stated in the report were not correct as he put his defence in reply to charge-sheet.