Ashok Kumar v. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal and Labour, Union Territory, Chandigarh & Ors.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ....... RESPONDENTS Present: Mr. S.S.Dinarpur, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the present writ petition is for quashing of the Award dated 18.05.2009 (Annexure P-17), vide which the reference has been answered against the workman by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh. Counsel for the petitioner contends that at the time when the checking was alleged to have taken place by the checking staff of the respondents-Management, neither the statement of any of the witnesses was recorded nor the cash in hand with the petitioner-workman was checked and the evidence led by the Management before the Enquiry Officer also does not substantiate the contention that the workman had committed any fraud on the Management. He contends that the tickets were not issued to the passengers as they were police officials and no tickets are to be issued to such officials as they are exempted from taking CWP No. 4342 of 2010 2 any tickets. His further contention is that the quantum of punishment i.e. dismissal from service is too harsh keeping in view the fact that the allegation against the petitioner was that he had defrauded the Management of Rs. 271/-. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. As per the evidence led by the parties and the enquiry held against the workman, it has come on record that the petitioner, who was a Conductor with the Management, was on duty with Bus No. CH-01-G-5136. On 13.07.1996, the bus was checked at Kartarpur. The checking staff found that five passengers, who had boarded the bus from Jalandhar to Kartarpur, had paid Rs. 25/- to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 5/- each as fare but the workman did not issue them tickets and they alighted from the bus without tickets at Kartarpur. Nine passengers, who had boarded from Jalandhar and were going to Beas, had paid Rs. 99/- at the rate of Rs. 11/- each to the petitioner-workman but he did not issue tickets to them also. The net result was that he had not issued tickets to 14 passengers and the total amount, which he had defrauded the Management, was Rs. 271/-. On the basis of these allegations, a charge-sheet was issued. Reply to the said charge-sheet was submitted by the petitioner, which was not found to be satisfactory. An enquiry was conducted wherein the checking staff, namely, Sh. Dev Raj, Inspector, Sh. Chint Ram, Inspector, Sh. Mohinder Singh Saini, Inspector and Sh. Kewal Singh, Inspector, appeared. Due opportunities were given to the petitioner to put forth his defence. He cross-examined the witnesses of the Management and also produced one Sh. Harbhajan Singh in his defence apart from he himself appeared as his own witness. Sh. Harbhajan Singh came forward and CWP No. 4342 of 2010 3 stated that he was a police official and, therefore, had not taken the ticket. On consideration of the evidence, which has been led before the Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry Officer concluded that the charges against the workman stood proved as Harbhajan Singh was a witness who had been brought by the workman merely in his defence. For this conclusion, the Enquiry Officer has concluded that the petitioner had not, in his reply to show cause notice, mentioned about Harbhajan Singh being a passenger, who belonged to the police department who was travelling by the bus. The factum that the passengers were travelling without tickets, was admitted by the workman-petitioner. The only defence, which was taken, was that they were police officials and they had not taken tickets from him. No documentary evidence with regard to the police officials being exempted from taking tickets, was produced before the Enquiry Officer. On the basis of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, the services of the petitioner were terminated. The petitioner preferred an appeal, which was also not accepted by the competent authority. The Labour Court has gone into the question with regard to the legality of the enquiry conducted against the workman and the same has been found to be in accordance with law. That apart, when the Enquiry Officer has found that the workman-petitioner had not issued tickets despite having received the amount from the passengers, the defraud committed by the workman, which amounts to Rs. 271/-, stands proved. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the statements of the passengers were required to be recorded by the Inspecting Staff and also during the enquiry, does not hold the field in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and another vs. Rattan Singh, 1977 (1) SLR 750. In the CWP No. 4342 of 2010 4 said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the statements of the passengers are not required to be recorded. Strict Rules of Evidence are not applicable to the enquiry proceedings and if the Inspecting Staff come forth and makes a statement to that effect and the said statement is not, in any manner, contrary to the facts of the case, the same has to be taken into consideration. The contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner with regard to the fact that the cash was not checked from the petitioner-workman at the time of the checking, also does not hold the field for the reason that the Inspecting Staff had proved the factum that the petitioner-workman had taken money from the passengers but had not issued the tickets. With regard to the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the quantum of punishment is disproportionate to the misconduct attributed to the petitioner, suffice it to say that the fraud committed by the workman on the Management is un-condonable. The faith is posed on the workman to perform the duties diligently and with honesty. The hall-mark of the faith is the sincerity towards duty and when a workman is required to deal with money and that too, with the public, the essence, therefore, is honesty, which, in the present case, has been flaunted by the petitioner. No lenient view, in such cases, can be taken where fraud is proved to have been committed by the workman on the Management during the enquiry proceedings, which have been found to be in accordance with law by the Labour Court. Finding no merit in the present petition, the same stands dismissed. March 23, 2010 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE