Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This is a writ petition arising out of the proceedings under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act'). Briefly, the facts are that the respondent No. 1 was working as conductor in the petitioner-Corporation during the relevant time. On 8-5-1973, he was the conductor of the bus going from Nagpur to Pusad. The said bus was checked in front of the Office of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Digras. When the said bus was checked, the checking party found that there were 30 passengers in the bus, out of whom 27 were having tickets and three were without tickets. According to the checking party, the passengers who were without tickets were going from Nagpur to Pusad, and that they had paid the necessary fare to the conductor of the bus, i.e. the respondent No. 1, but no tickets were issued to them by the conductor. Further, according to the checking party, when the bus was approaching the checking point and as the conductor noticed the checking party, he torn three tickets from his tray of Rs. 1.20 denomination each which were found thrown in the bus.

2. At the spot, the checking party recorded the statement of the conductor and the two passengers who were travelling without tickets in the bus. A charge sheet was thereafter issued to the respondent-conductor and a domestic enquiry was held against him by the Depot Manager initially and after his transfer by the Divisional Traffic Superintendent (for short 'the D.T.S.'). The D.T.S. who is the competent authority to impose punishment upon the conductor, came to the conclusion that the petitioner-corporation in the departmental enquiry did not clarify the lacuna that according to the conductor 30 tickets were issued to the passengers during the trip in question before it was checked, whereas the case of the Department was that at the time the bus was checked there were 27 passengers with tickets and three without tickets. However, inspite of this lacuna, the D.T.S. held that there were three passengers, without tickets in the bus. He, therefore, held that no serious action can be taken against the conductor by way of his dismissal in view of the lacuna in the evidence produced by the Department. Accordingly, he imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for six months for the irregularity in overwriting the personal amount in the way bill, without cumulative effect.

20. It is true that in his examination-in-chief, the said witness Mr. Gadge stated that there were 30 passengers in the bus out of whom 27 passengers showed their tickets but three did not. From the above statement of one of the checking staff, it cannot be said with certainty that because the three passengers did not show the tickets they had no tickets particularly in view of the way-bill which showed that the there were 33 passengers in the Bus with tickets. Reliance was placed upon the spot statement, in which the conductor himself admitted that there were 27 passengers with tickets and three passengers without tickets when the bus was checked. In his explanation to the charge-sheet as well as in the deposition, he had explained that the said statement in his spot statement by him under pressure. It may also be seen that the conductor has examined one of the passengers whose spot statement was recorded by the checking staff. It may be seen that in his evidence in the departmental enquiry he has gone back upon his own spot statement.

21. In the above state of evidence before him in the departmental enquiry, in my view, it cannot be said that the view taken by the D.T.S. was not a possible view. The burden of proving the mis-conduct was upon the Department and it was, therefore, necessary for the Department to explain the material discrepancy between the way-bill and the actual situation which existed on the spot when the Bus was checked. There is no material placed on record to show that the way-bill was in any way altered or there were any erasures or that it was a suspicious document. It may be seen that the entries in the way-bill are to be made as soon as the tickets are issued to the passengers. It is only on the basis of the three tickets of Rs. 1.20 denomination each torn from the tray and which were found lying in the bus, that an inference is sought to be drawn that on seeing the checking party, these tickets were sought to be issued by the conductor and, therefore, it is sought to be urged that the charge that no tickets were issued to the said three passengers were proved. In my view, looking to the above facts and circumstances, it is difficult to draw such an inference, particularly when the discrepancy in the way-bill is not explained properly by the Department. Thus, the view taken by the D.T.S. is a possible view and it was not, therefore, open to the Divisional Controller to review the same in his review jurisdiction under Clause 9 of the Discipline and Appeal Procedure.