* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C.) No. 10355/2009 % Date of Decision: 24th July, 2009 # SH. MAHINDER PAL ..... PETITIONER ! Through: Mr. Kishore Kumar Patel, Advocate. VERSUS $ DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANOTHER .....RESPONDENTS ^ Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat with Ms. Latika Choudhary, Advocates. 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 an award dated 25.01.2008 passed by Ms. Nisha Saxena, Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Fast Track-XXI, Delhi rejecting his claim for reinstatement or back wages. Heard. Briefly stated the facts of the case relevant for the disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a Conductor with Delhi Transport Corporation (D.T.C.) on 01.08.1983. On 16.09.1993 around 17:45 hours, he was on duty in Bus No. 9870 on inter-State route from Delhi to Chhutmulpur. The checking staff checked the bus at Gagal Hedi and found a group of 3 passengers which was traveling from Shaharanpur to Gagal Hedi was not issued any tickets though the W.P.(C) No. 10355/2009 Page 1 of 4 petitioner had collected fare of Rs. 5/- from each of them. The passengers found traveling without tickets were checked by the checking staff while they were deboarding the bus at Gagal Hedi. The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated 08.10.1993 in regard to above-mentioned violation and misconduct on his part under para 19 (a), (b), (c), (f), and (h) of the Standing Orders applicable to D.T.C. Employees. A domestic inquiry was held against the delinquent petitioner in which he was found guilty of the charges attributed to him. The Disciplinary Authority on the basis of the Inquiry Report and the other material relating to his past conduct decided to remove the petitioner from service and accordingly, he was removed from the service of the D.T.C. w.e.f. 27.10.1994. The petitioner aggrieved by his removal from the service of the respondent raised an industrial dispute which was referred by the appropriate Government for adjudication to the Labour Court. The Labour Court vide its order dated 04.01.2008 decided the inquiry issue in favour of the management and against the workman. The order dated 04.01.2008 on inquiry issued passed by the Industrial Adjudicator is at pages 83 to 89 of the Paper Book and the same has been perused by me. The Court below has given cogent reasons in its order dated 04.01.2008 to hold that the domestic inquiry held against the petitioner was in conformity with the principles of natural justice. A reading of order dated 04.01.2008 on inquiry issue would show that adequate opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend the charges against him. It is also borne out from the order on inquiry issue dated 04.01.2008 that all documents relied upon by the management against the petitioner were supplied to him and he had cross-examined all the three witnesses examined by the management in the course of W.P.(C) No. 10355/2009 Page 2 of 4 domestic inquiry. Hence, I do not find any merit in the argument of the petitioner's counsel that opportunity to defend the case was not given to the petitioner in the course of domestic inquiry. The Industrial Adjudicator vide its impugned award dated 25.01.2008, taking note of the precedents referred in the said award and also the past service record of the petitioner, found that the penalty of removal from service imposed by the management by no means is disproportionate to the mis-conduct proved against the petitioner. Mr. Patel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has placed reliance on Regulation 15-A of Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1952 and relying on the said regulation, he has argued that the alleged mis-conduct on the part of the petitioner is protected as the shortage noticed by the checking staff was only to the tune of Rs. 15/-. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court below did not took notice of Regulation 15-A referred above and, therefore, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. I have gone through Regulation 15-A of Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1952 which is extracted by the petitioner at page 4 in the writ petition but on going through the same, I do not find that the said Regulation has any applicability to the mis-conduct proved against the petitioner. It shall be significant to mention here that the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Industrial Adjudicator, has taken into account eight earlier adverse entries in the service record of the petitioner which all related to similar types of mis-conduct. The petitioner was punished on two earlier occasions, first time his one increment was stopped and second time penalty of stoppage of two increments was passed against him. The W.P.(C) No. 10355/2009 Page 3 of 4 penalty imposed on the petitioner on two earlier occasions did not deter him from not issuing tickets to the passengers after collecting fare from them. There are any number of judgments in which it has been held that when a charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. Mis-conduct in such cases has to be dealt with iron hands. Where the person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transactions or acts in a fiduciary capacity, the highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness is a must and unexceptionable. The petitioner has defied all norms and his retention in service of D.T.C. will not be in the public interest. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned award calling for an interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. This writ petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed in limine. JULY 24, 2009 S.N.AGGARWAL, J 'bsr' W.P.(C) No. 10355/2009 Page 4 of 4