Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

SUBMISSIONS:

Sri S.M.Subhan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner has issued tickets correctly to all the passengers on board and reflected the numbers of those tickets in his SR. When the check was conducted, contended the learned counsel, five of the passengers mistakenly showed the tickets which had been issued in the earlier trips. In other words, the learned counsel has contended that those five passengers may have travelled in the same bus on earlier trips, and, in the confusion, when the checking officials started checking the tickets, they produced the tickets of those earlier trips rather than the tickets that were given by the petitioner in the current trip. The learned counsel has also submitted that the Disciplinary Authority, during the course of enquiry, has not considered the explanation submitted by the petitioner, nor has he considered the past blemishless conduct of the petitioner for more than a decade.

When a challenge was laid against the order of removal passed by the 2nd respondent, the Labour Court negatived the first issue, holding that all passengers were issued tickets, and as such the question of violation of issue and start does not arise.

Concerning the other three charges, which cumulatively involve the issue of reused tickets to five passengers, it was brought on record by the Corporation during the course of enquiry, as was observed by the Labour Court, that there were in total 44 passengers in the bus and 39 had regular tickets. Five passengers were found to have with them reused tickets. When questioned, those passengers said to have stated to the checking officials that after the payment of the requisite fare, they were issued only those tickets. Evidently four out of five passengers possessing the used tickets gave statement to the same effect. Since one passenger did not issue any spot statement to the checking officials, to the extent of one reused ticket, the Labour Court has rightly disbelieved the charge. It is clear from the record that despite the checking officials pointing out to the passengers that those five tickets had been reissued, they insisted that those are the tickets that had been given to them by the petitioner after collecting the fare.

In this regard, it is appropriate to examine the ratio laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Mahesh Kumar Mishra (6 supra). The facts, in the said case are to the effect that while the delinquent conductor was on duty on a city bus, the same was checked by the Transport Inspector, who allegedly found that 11 passengers travelling from a longer distance had been issued short distance tickets. In the domestic inquiry conducted, in terms of the relevant regulations of the U.P.State Road Transport Corporation, no passenger was examined. What is of vital importance is that even at the time of effecting the check, the Transport Inspector did not record the spot statement of the passengers. The bone of contention in the said case was whether the passengers boarded the bus at the stage which the tickets reflected or at any other prior stage which required issuing of tickets of higher fare. The Transport Inspector in the inquiry has asserted that those passengers were travelling from a longer distance having boarded the bus at a previous stage; the delinquent conductor, on the other hand, denied the statement and has contended that the passengers boarded the bus only at the stage the tickets reflected. In that context their Lordships have felt that to throw light on the said controversy, examining the passengers was essential, but that was not done. On that count, the inquiry was held to have been vitiated.

It is to be further appreciated that the petitioner examined himself as defence witness and deposed that he had issued correct tickets to all the passengers and that at the time of check there were only 39 passengers. The fact, however, remains that indisputably there were 39 passengers with valid tickets, but the total number of passengers was 44, when the check took place. Out of those 44, five possessed used tickets. It is observed on a careful perusal of SR entries that those five tickets were issued by the petitioner himself in the previous trips.