O/ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI$GARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETiTiaN NO. 31 05 OF 1992 Suresh Kumar Gupta. Sio Shri :shwari Prasad Gupta, aged about 27 years, Ex- Conductor, MP. State Road Trans-pod Corporation, Rajnandgaon, Address Behind Veterinaw Hespital, 'Subhash Ward, Bhatapara, V.P.O., Bhatapara, Distt. Raipur. PETITIONER Versus RE$PONDENTS 1. Chhattisgarh infrastructure Corperation, Clock Tower Square. Near Kuchery, Raipur. 2. The Presiding Gffwer. Labaur Court. Rajnandgaon at Burg. 3. The lnduatrial Caurt of MR. through its Member, Raipur Bench Krishna Sadan, 16 H.i.G.. Shankar Nagar, Raipur. (Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 at the Constitution of india) $ingie Bench : Hon’bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Pankaj Agrawai, counsel forthe petitioner. Shri Pradeep Saxena, counsel for the respondent No.1. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 9m day of April, 2009) The petitioner. in this petition, impugns the order dated 9-6-1989 (Annexure - P/5) passed by the Labour Court, Rajnandgaon. and the order dated 23-4-1992 (Annexure — PI'I'} passed by the lndustrial Court on the ground that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing or no enquiry was held into the allegations made against the petitioner. 2) The facts, in nutshell, for disposal of the case, are that the petitioner was appointed as Conductor for a period of one year on probation by order dated 21-10-1985 (Annexure — PH). Within the period of probation, the conduct of the petitioner was not found satisfactory and, as such, by order dated 3-6-1986 (Annexure - Pf2) the service of the petitioner was removed holding that his probation was not found satisfactory. 3) Against the. removai order, the petitioner approached the Labour Court, the LabourCourt after having considered ail the facts by its order dated 9-6-1989 (Annexure - P/5) came to the conclusion that this is not a case where departmental enuiry should be heid as all the charges have \ q k3 been proved against the petitianer. The irregularities have been committed by the petiticner in presence of several efficers and the petitiener wee caught red-handed during inspection with regard to embezzlement of Cerporatien‘s tund. Even during the probation period, the petitioner permitted eeveral paesengers to travel in the bus without proper tickets. Accordingly, the application of the petitioner was dismissed by the Labour Court. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Labour Court. the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the State lndustrial Court. The State industrial Court by order dated 23-4—1992 (Annexure -— Pl?) having affirmed the findings recorded by the Labour Court. dismissed the appeal. however, it was directed to pay arrears of salary with Dearness Allowance to the petitioner from the date of remove! tiit 9-6-1989 within a period of three months. 4) Shri $axena, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, submits that this is not a case where any prejudice would be caused if the petitioner is not afforded an opportunity of hearing because hrstly, the petitioner was on probation: and secondiy. the atlegations were found proved in presence of the petitioner himself and other passengers traveling in the bus. 5) l have heard teamed counsel appearing for the parties. perused the pteadings and the documents appended thereto. lt appears that the petitioner was caught red-handed. he has sufficient opportunity to explain and the records indicate that the petitioner has committed irregularity during probation period by permitting some of the passengers to travel in the bus without making any payment. Thus, the misdeeds of the petitioner caused loss to the employer and in a case like this where all the facts are admitted compliance of principles of natural justice by conducting an enquiry would be an empty formality. The petitioner has been granted fuli salary with allowances for the period from the date of his removal tiil 9-6-1989. The employer has not chosen to challenge the said part of the order. Thus, the petitioner has been fully compensated. 6) Law in respect of principles of natural justice is welt settled that the principles of natural justice cannot be put in a straitjacket formula. in Viveka Nand Sethi vs. Chairman, J & K Bank Ltd. and Others1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under: s g 1 (2(305) 5 SCC 337 ,t"e “22. The principle of natural justice, it is trite, is no unruiy horse. When facts are admitted, an enquiry wouid he an empty formality. Even the principle of estoppel will apply. I$ee Guijeewan Garewai (Dn) v. an Samara Dash {(20%} 5 scc 2531 The wincipies of natural justice are required to be complied with having regard to the fact situation obtaining therein. it cahhot be put in a straitjacket termula. It cannot be applied in a vawum without reference to the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. {See State ef Penjab v. Jagir Singh {(2004) 8 3CC 129} and Kemaiake SRTC v, S.G. Kotturappa {(2005) 3 SCC 409]. 7) Thus. the orders impugned are unexceptionable, just & proper and do not warrant any interference. 8) in View of the foregoing, the petitien is liahle to be and is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. Sdl- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge t\‘