Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
The brief facts of present appeal are that respondent Kanti Atmaram Vyas being a plaintiff was working as Conductor in ST Corporation at Upleta Depot. The plaintiff was confirmed Conductor and ST Corporation is being statutory body and frame Discipline and Appeal Rules & Procedure which are applicable to Corporation. The plaintiff was dismissed from service on 29/11/1979 because of misconduct found to be proved against plaintiff dated 12/8/1979.
(3.1) The charge was levelled against plaintiff that on 12/8/1979 plaintiff Conductor was on duty on Upleta to Gadhethd Bus. This bus was checked by Checking Inspector Mr. S. K. Chavda and party of security branch, Junagadh at Murkhda Fatak and irregularities are found that two passengers were traveling from Upleta to Nagvadar, three passengers were traveling from Upleta to Ishra patiya and nine passengers were traveling from Upleta to Murkhda Patiya, found without tickets. At the time of checking, total amount of tickets comes to Rs. 5.90/-, which required to be recovered by plaintiff from passengers which has not been recovered said amount by plaintiff from any of passengers. It is an undisputed facts found from charge sheet that at the time when checking was taken place no fare has been recovered by plaintiff from any of passengers as referred above. So, it is not a case of dishonesty or misappropriation alleged against plaintiff by ST Corporation.
35. (3.3) Thereafter, Trial Court has considered how departmental inquiry was conducted against present plaintiff and also considered important facts, which was not in dispute between parties that on the date of incident, his bus was started little bit late then 10.45 am from platform no. 4 as platform is required to be vacated for another bus. There was a heavy rush of passengers and out of 62 passengers, who were traveling in his bus, at the time of checking about 48 passengers were found with tickets. At the time of checking he was doing road booking and aforesaid passengers were not issued tickets because bus was checked within short distance about three to five kilometers from bus stand of Upleta. Only fault of plaintiff that he has done road booking and some passengers were found without tickets which total amount of non issuance of tickets comes to Rs. 5.90/-. No passengers were examined during departmental inquiry, for that, no reasons have been given and age of plaintiff at the time when order of dismissal was passed about 40 years.
On this basis, Trial Court has come to conclusion that no reasonable proper opportunity of hearing was given to plaintiff before passing order of dismissal. The charge levelled against plaintiff that he has not issued tickets without proper reasons to passengers who were found without tickets at the time of checking. Therefore, Trial Court has come to conclusion that it is a clear case of No evidence and denial reasonable opportunity of hearing to plaintiff and dismissal order has been passed contrary to principle of natural justice. Therefore, same has been set aside with consequential relief of granting reinstatement with all benefits by judgment and decree in favour of plaintiff dated 27/1/1983. It is necessary to note that before Trial Court, ST Corporation has not raised question of jurisdiction. There was no contention raised by Corporation before Trial Court that Civil Court has no jurisdiction. Therefore, that question was not examined by Trial Court.
In respect to second Substantial question of law that whether it is case of No evidence and if that be so whether plaintiff is entitled relief of reinstatement or not? This aspect has been considered by Trial Court as well as Lower Appellate Court on facts which has been discussed by Appellate Court in para 25 to 31, which are quoted as under:
"25. Now, the respondent has narrated the circumstances under which the bus had left from Upleta Bus Station. It is his case that the bus was late. That another bus was required to be placed at the stand on which the bus of the respondent was stationary. He had already issued tickets to 48 passengers. Thereafter, the bus had left from Upleta bus station and as soon as he was about to reach the front portion of the bus for issuing tickets to rest of the passengers, the checking was done by the Checking Officer and therefore, he was unable to issue tickets to those 14 passengers.