Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The brief facts for consideration are as follows:

The case of the petitioner is that the second respondent was employed as its conductor and while he was on duty in Route No.S10 between Udhayampalayam and Ondipudur, on 23.10.1997, the checking officials of the petitioner Corporation checked the bus at Lakshmi Mills Bus stop at about 17 hours and found that the second respondent had issued half-torn tickets to the passengers. The checking officials recovered the half-torn tickets from the passengers and the other half of the torn-tickets were with the conductor. Hence, charges were framed against the second respondent under Section 14(d)(ab)of the Standing Orders of the Corporation.

3. The second respondent herein who has filed a counter before the Industrial Tribunal has submitted that he was a conductor in the petitioner Corporation and he had put in 17 years of service. At the relevant time, he was working in Ondipudur Branch of the petitioner Corporation. He also admitted that he was on duty in the Bus Route No.S10 between Udayampalayam and Ondipudur. When the checking officials were checking the bus at Lakshmi Mills bus stop, one Mr.Raghupathy, collected the tickets from the passengers who got down at various stops. He also collected the ticket books from the respondent-conductor and had torn some tickets in some of the denominations and those tickets were the first tickets at that time in the hands of the respondent. The checking officials did not write anything either in the invoice or in the TTR. Usually, the checking officials used to record the irregularity in the invoice or in the TTR. More importantly, the checking officials did not tally the passengers in the bus and the invoice. It was not done in any one of the bus stops between Lakshmi Mill and Ondipudur. The tallying of number of passengers with the invoice is usually done in all the checkings. Though the checking officials travelled upto Ondipudur, this was not done. Further, they did not obtain any statement from any of the passengers from whom tickets were said to have been collected. It is also an usual procedure. There was no checking of the cash bag. Only with a motive to put him in trouble, this checking was done. Thereafter, the checking officials served the irregularity report at the time of checking without mentioning any irregularity and therefore, the second respondent objected for such irregularity report and he noted his objection. In this situation, the petitioner Corporation issued a charge memo alleging that he had issued half-torn tickets to the passengers in various denominations thereby misappropriating Rs.60.50.

1996(2)SCC 714, wherein it was held that in cases of misappropriation, there cannot be any other punishment other than dismissal. It was further observed by the Supreme Court that any sympathy shown in such cases is totally uncalled for and opposed to public interest. The amount misappropriated may be small or large, but it is the act of misappropriation that is relevant."

12. Mr.D.Hariparanthaman, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent - conductor contended that the checking officials, particularly, Mr.Raghupathy collected tickets from the passengers who got down at various stops. He had also taken the ticket books from the respondent and had torn some tickets in some of the denominations and those tickets were the first tickets at that time in the hands of the respondent - conductor. The checking officials did not write anything either in the invoice or in the TTR. The usual procedure is to record the irregularity in the invoice or in the TTR. They did not tally the passengers in the bus and the invoice. It was not done in any of the bus stops between Lakshmi Mill and Ondipudur.

15. The most relevant issue to be considered in this case is that whether the passengers who had been issued with half-torn tickets were examined or not. Moreover, M.W.3 - the driver of the bus was examined as a witness on the side of the management. But, when he has deposed in favour of the second respondent conductor, he was not cross examined. This witness has been not treated as hostile. Normally, the procedure in checking is tallying the ticket numbers issued to the passengers with that of the conductor and thereafter, checking of the cash bag to find out whether there is any excess cash, to arrive at a proper conclusion. If there is excess cash, then there can be a possibility of any misappropriation. Even if there is less cash, that would be an irregularity committed by the conductor-the second respondent herein. This aspect was not at all considered by the enquiry officer and therefore, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that there is perverse finding in the enquiry inasmuch as the crucial fact of the evidence, the non- examination of the passengers, the non-checking of the cash were not considered.