* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No. 9254/2009 % Date of Decision: 09 July, 2009 # Shri Prem Singh ..... Petitioner ! Through: Mr. G.S. Charya, Advocate VERSUS $ Delhi Transport Corporation .....RESPONDENT ^ Through: Mr. Saurabh Chadha, proxy counsel CORAM: Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL 1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2. To be referred to the reporter or not?YES 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?YES S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL) This writ petition filed by the workman (petitioner herein) is directed against the order dated 04.04.2007 on inquiry issue and award dated 06.07.2007 passed by Ms. Nisha Saxena, Presiding Officer, Labour Court XXI, Fast Track, Delhi rejecting his claim for reinstatement and back wages. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a conductor with Delhi Transport Corporation (respondent herein) on 01.01.1972. While he was working as conductor with Delhi Transport Corporation, he was apprehended 9 times and was charge sheeted for non-issuance of ticket to the passengers. He was caught for the tenth time on 22.03.1992 when he was deployed for W.P.(C) No.9254/2009 Page 1 of 4 duty on Delhi-Panipat ruote at the time the bus was checked by checking staff at 7:20 AM and the petitioner was found not having issued tickets of Rs. 14.50 to one passenger travelling in the bus. He was charge sheeted on 02.04.1992 for misconduct under Clause 19(b), (h) & (m) of the Standing Orders for not issuing ticket of Rs. 14.50 to one passenger when he was on duty on Delhi-Panipat route on 22.03.1992. The charge sheet is at page 15 of the Paper Book. It was mentioned in the charge sheet that the past conduct of the petitioner will also be taken into account. The inquiry into the charges was held against the petitioner and the Inquiry Officer found him guilty of the charges levelled against him in the charge sheet dated 02.04.1992 referred above. The Disciplinary Authority of the respondent after considering the Inquiry Report and other relevant material decided to remove the petitioner from service and accordingly he was removed from service of Delhi Transport Corporation w.e.f. 02.06.1995. 3. Aggrieved by his removal, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute which was referred by the appropriate Government for adjudication to the Labour Court. The Labour Court after considering the evidence produced by the parties before it vide its order dated 04.04.2007 decided the inquiry issue against the petitioner and held that the inquiry is not vitiated for non-observance of principles of natural justice. Thereafter, vide award dated 06.07.2007, assailed in the present writ petition, the Labour Court held that the removal of the petitioner from service of Delhi Transport Corporation was on account of proved misconduct against him which was of grave nature. The disciplinary authority as well as the Labour Court have also taken into account the past conduct of the petitioner while upholding his removal from service. 4. There were 15 adverse entries in the service record of the W.P.(C) No.9254/2009 Page 2 of 4 petitioner out of which 9 related to non-issuance of tickets by him to the passengers on earlier occasions. The punishment of reduction of his pay was also imposed on him on two earlier occasions, on one occasion his two increments were forfeited and on the other occasion, one increment was forfeited. These two punishments imposed upon the petitioner relate to the incidents of 18.10.1983 and 24.02.1986 respectively when also, he was caught by the checking staff for not issuing tickets to the passengers. The petitioner was even suspended from service at the time he was caught by the checking staff on 18.10.1983 for not issuing tickets to the passengers. However, the suspension was later on revoked and he was taken back on duty after inflicting punishment of stoppage of two increments of him with regard to the incident of 18.10.1983. This did not deter the petitioner and he continued with his designs in defrauding the respondent Corporation by pocketing the money collected by him from the passengers and not issuing ticket to them. The fact of 15 adverse entries in the service record of the petitioner in the past is not denied by the petitioner in the writ petition. His past conduct coupled with his involvement in the current incident of 22.03.1992 shows that the petitioner was indulging in corrupt practices and for that reason, his removal from service of DTC, which is a public utility department, is fully justified. The corrupt people have no legal right to remain in public employment. They have to be dealt with iron hands. 5. Having regard to the facts of the case that are borne out from the record, I do not find any substance in the argument of Mr. Charya that the report of the Inquiry Officer is perverse. In my opinion, the impugned award is a well-reasoned award and does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its extra-ordinary discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. W.P.(C) No.9254/2009 Page 3 of 4 6. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition which fails and is hereby dismissed in limine. JULY 09, 2009 S.N.AGGARWAL, J 'ma' W.P.(C) No.9254/2009 Page 4 of 4