Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. The charge against the respondent was that on November 23, 1990 the checking team of Delhi Transport Corporation checked the bus on Delhi-Ballabhgarh route in which the respondent was on duty as a conductor. On checking it was found that two groups of passengers totalling number six who alighted at Ballabhgarh bus stand were without tickets and on enquiry by the checking officials it was revealed by those passengers that they had paid the fare to the respondent but he did not issue tickets to them. The aforesaid statements of the passengers were taken in writing and the respondent No. 1 accepted the said statements and he also handed over six unpunched tickets to the checking officials on the basis of which the aforesaid charge sheet was issued. A domestic enquiry was conducted in respect of the aforesaid allegations. During the course of the aforesaid domestic enquiry the respondent No. 1 made a request for furnishing a number of documents including circulars dated December 12, 1952 and July 29, 1954. It was the definite stand of the petitioner that the aforesaid two circulars were not available with the Corporation and, therefore, the same could not be given, whereas the other documents which were sought for were furnished to the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 was also asked if he wanted the assistance of a co-worker which he refused, which is clear and apparent from the order sheet of the domestic enquiry dated August 27, 1991. In the said order it is clearly mentioned that the respondent No. 1 was asked as to whether he would like to defend himself or would like to have the assistance of a co-worker upon which the respondent No. 1 specifically stated that he would conduct the case himself. The records of the enquiry proceedings, copies of which were placed before me, would also establish that the respondent No. 1 extensively cross-examined all the witnesses. The passenger witnesses were also called for the enquiry as is disclosed from the said records, but it appears that the said passenger witnesses failed to appear before the enquiry officer. On conclusion of the enquiry, the enquiry officer found all the charges levelled against the respondent No. 1 proved and submitted a report thereto. Agreeing with the aforesaid findings of the enquiry officer, the Depot Manager, Nehru Place Depot, issued a show cause notice to the respondent No. 1 under memo dated April 21, 1993 which was received by the respondent No. 1 but he did not submit a reply thereto. The services of the respondent No. 1 were accordingly terminated by letter dated July 11, 1994.

(1) None of the passengers traveling without tickets were examined in the domestic enquiry.

(2) The checking inspectors had violated a departmental instructions by not recording the statements of the passengers.

(3) The co-conductor in the bus had affirmed the innocence of the conductor.

In paragraph 4 of the said judgment the Supreme Court had held that a domestic inquiry can take into consideration all materials logically probative for a prudent mind and that there is no allergy of hearsay evidence, provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. It was also held in the said decision that the passengers are not required to be chased and brought before the domestic tribunal. On the scope of permissible interference with the conclusions of a domestic inquiry, the Supreme Court said in the same paragraph that what has to be seen is whether there was some evidence or was it a case of no evidence. It was further held that as long as there was some evidence, sufficiency thereof in proof of a finding by a domestic tribunal is beyond scrutiny. The Supreme Court found that there was some evidence before the inquiry officer and, therefore, the order passed in the domestic inquiry could not be held invalid. The following passage from the decision of the Supreme Court is worth quoting which is as under:-

11. In the present case, there was evidence before the enquiry officer in the form of statements of the six passengers which were also signed by the respondent No. 1, the unpunched tickets and also the evidence of the checking staff. In my considered opinion, there being independent evidence like the evidence of the checking staff and unpunched tickets to link the respondent No. 1 with the charge levelled against him, the Tribunal did not appreciate the issues in the right perspective and on the basis of settled position of law and, therefore, it committed an error. The Tribunal also committed an error in holding that there was violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the enquiry. I am also of the considered opinion that this is not a case where it could be said that there was violation of the principles of natural justice or where the enquiry was vitiated as was held by the Tribunal inasmuch as there was definitely legal evidence before the enquiry officer having nexus with the events that were being enquired into. The guilt of the respondent No. 1 was correctly established in the domestic enquiry proceedings and the Tribunal fell into an error in holding that the domestic enquiry was vitiated. In that view of the matter both the orders of the Tribunal are liable to be set aside.