North West Karnataka Road Transport ... vs H.H.Pujar on 18 July, 2008
8. With regard to the submission that Corporation had
not followed the procedure, learned counsel for petitioner submits
that checking official did not count cash in spite of request made
by his client. A perusal of statement of checking official V. Malliah
before the Enquiry Officer shows that he denied in the cross-
examination that petitioner demanded to check the cash.
Petitioner attested the statement of disputed passengers at the
spot, in those circumstances, counting cash in the cash bag does
not arise. The Labour Court relied on the judgment reported in
North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. H.H.
Pujar (2005-III LLJ 629), wherein it is held that 'non-examination
of ticket-less passengers and non-checking of cash bag is not a
ground for setting aside the dismissal order and strict rules of
evidence is not applicable when the conductor's statement and
record itself established that tickets were issued by the conductor.
When evidence, statements and entries in the S.R. are very clear
that disputed invalid tickets were issued by petitioner himself in
the earlier trip and the same were reissued to the passengers in
the next trip, the Labour Court has rightly come to the conclusion
that findings of the Enquiry Officer are not liable to be interfered.
10
Moreover, in the counter, respondent Corporation stated that
petitioner did not respond to the notices sent by them, hence,
keeping in view the principles of natural justice, another
opportunity was given to defend his case. Even on 29.06.2007
also, he failed to produce witnesses. As there was no option left
with the Enquiry Officer except to submit his findings /report (ex
parte) , taking into account the available documentary evidence
viz. passengers statement, explanation to the charge memo and
charge sheet and attestations made by petitioner at spot including
the statement TTI. Sri V. Malliah in the domestic enquiry in which
petitioner also participated and availed the opportunity by way of
cross-examining him, he was removed from service by order dated
10.09.2007. Therefore, it cannot be said that Corporation has not
followed the prescribed procedure while conducting enquiry.