Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The petitioner was employed as a Conductor in Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent Corporation'). On 10-9-1983 when Bus No. 8093 belonging to the respondent Corporation in which the petitioner was on duty as Conductor on Kishangarh-Harpalpur route, was checked at about 9-15 a.m. by the Flying Squad of the respondent-Corporation and it was found that out of 53 total passengers, the respondent (petitioner herein) was carrying 20 passengers without tickets in the said bus. The checker realised double fare from the said 20 passengers and issued tickets to them, The petitioner was charge sheeted for the aforementioned misconduct and domestic enquiry was held against him. The petitioner took the defence that those 20 passengers had just boarded the bus at the place where chekers arrived and checked the bus. In the domestic enquiry, the Enquiry Officer on appreciation of evidence rejected the defence set up by the petitioner and recorded the conclusion that the misconduct was fully. established and the petitioner was found guilty for carrying 20 passengers without tickets. Consequently, by order dated 17th December, 1983 (Annexure-IV) the petitioner was dismissed from service. The petitioner challenged the domestic enquiry as well as the order of his dismissal before the Labour Court under section 31(3) of the M. P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960. The Labour Court did not find any error or defect in the domestic enquiry and found that it was just and proper but took the view that the punishment of dismissal from service awarded to the petitioner was harsh and excessive. In the opinion of the Labour Court, the punishment of withholding back wages and a fine of Rs. 100/- (Rs. One Hundred) would be adequate punishment in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Labour Court, therefore, directed reinstatement of the petitioner without back wages and also imposed a fine of Rs. 100/-. The respondent Corporation preferred an appeal under section 65 of the M. P. Industrial Relations Act before the State Industrial Court. The Industrial Court by its judgment dated 20th April, 1987 (Annexure VIII) set aside the order of the Labour Court and restored the order of dismissal from service of, the petitioner passed by 'the appropriate authority of respondent-Corporation holding that the misconduct established against the petitioner was of a grave and serious nature and there was no scope for any interference with the punishment. It is this order passed by. the State Industrial Court (Annexure-VIII) which has been challenged in this petition.

4. At the risk of repetition it may be mentioned that when the Bus in which the petitioner was working as Conductor, was checked by the Flying Squad, as many as 20 passengers were found without tickets in one trip for which the petitioner was charge-sheeted and domestic enquiry was held. In his reply to the charges levelled against him (Annexure 3) the petitioner admitted that while he was on duty as conductor, the bus was checked on 11-9-1983 but took the plea that the bus had halted at village Dharampura where the passengers boarded the bus and while it was so halting at village Dharampura, the checkers also arrived and checked the bus. This plea of the petitioner was found to be false in the domestic enquiry. At the time when 20 passengers were found travelling without tickets, the checkers had prepared a Panchnama marked as Ex. D.24, which was produced and relied on in the domestic enquiry as well as before the Labour Court. The said Panchnama (Ex. D.-24), admittedly bears the signature of the petitioner. The contents of Panchnama revealed that those 20 passengers who were found travelling without tickets had boarded the bus not at village Dharampura but at different places and the bus had covered a distance of 25 kms. when it was checked yet the petitioner had not issued tickets to any of them though he had more than sufficient time to do so. From the aforesaid facts what inference other than that of dishonest intention can be drawn.

7. It may also be pointed here that the expression that if the bus conductor had not recovered the fare from passengers found travelling without tickets, then the inference of dishonesty cannot be drawn, has in fact, instead of having the effect of improving the bus-conductor and discipline as honest employees of the Corporation, has on the contrary, provided them an inducement and a safeguard inasmuch as they have now developed a practice not to recover the fare from passengers who are allowed to travel in the bus without tickets, at the time of their entrance in the bus or mid way but at the place where they step down from the bus at the end of their journey so as to evade and exclude the danger of being checked after recovery of fare and if ultimately checked, at some point then to come forward with the usual defence that since he had not recovered the fare no intention of dishonesty can be attributed to him and thus escape safely or at the most with a punishment for minor misconduct. Thus after engaging our serious thought and on overall consideration of the matter, we find that there is absolutely no merit in this petition and it deserves to be dismissed.

8. While parting with the petition it may not be out of place to mention that the very object of employing a conductor and giving charge of the bus on a particular route is to safeguard and promote the prospects and interest of the employer a public undertaking in its venture of transport business. The conductor is expected to be vigilant enough and see that no passengers travel without tickets. If the conductor is unable to discharge this sacred trust reposed in him by the employer and on the contrary deliberately permits as many as 20 passengers to travel without tickets in a single trip, then he does not deserve to be retained as conductor. One can well imagine the consequence when the protector or the care-taker himself starts eating away the fence. This Court is dealing day in and day out the cases of misconduct by bus conductors of respondent-Corporation for carrying passengers without tickets in varying numbers and the experience shows that this conduct of the bus-conductors is writ large with the result, the Corporation is sinking under the weight of losses incurred by it on various counts, the carrying of passengers without tickets being the major factor. Contrary to this, a private Bus-Operator in a short interval makes fortune out of the transport business and becomes multi-vehicle owner, out of a single transport vehicle, while the respondent-Corporation with a large fleet of transport buses spread over throughout the length and breadth of the State is running in losses, the reason is obvious.