RAMESHWAR  Vs DTC -Judgment by Delhi High Court

$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 04.01.2023
+ LPA 306/2014
RAMESHWAR ….. Appellant
Through: Mr. S.K. Nanda, Advocate.

versus

DTC ….. Respondent
Through: Ms. Laavanya Kaushik, Mr. N.K. Singh and Ms. Aliza Alam, Advocates for Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH

NAJMI WAZIRI, J (ORAL)

The hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode (physical and virtual hearing).
1. The case is being taken up today as it was inadvertently listed for 02.01.2023, which was a holiday on account of winter vacation.
2. This appeal impugns the order of the learned Single Judge passed on 02.05.2013 in W.P.(C) 4759/2001 which overturned the decision of the learned Industrial Tribunal No. II in OP No. 234/1992 dated 20.04.2001. In the latter decision, the DTC�s application under section 33(2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was decided.
3. The facts of the case are that the appellant was a conductor of the DTC bus. While on duty, the checking party found in his possession 12 used tickets not relating to the bus on his route and excess amount of Rs.4 was recovered from him. The impugned order has recorded inter alia as under:

�13. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the possession of used tickets by itself has been declared to be an �offence� i.e. misconduct by office order No.139 dated 04.08.1960 bearing no. ADN II-5(10)/60. Under the head list of offences/conductors, a further sub-head �tickets� enlists six misconducts in relation to issuance and possession of tickets, the sixth being �being in possession of used and/or sold tickets�. She submits that, therefore, the issuance of used tickets is not essential to be proved to constitute misconduct on the part of the conductor, and mere possession thereof is sufficient to constitute misconduct. The executive instructions issued by the Delhi Road Transport Authority i.e. the predecessor in interest of the petitioner in relation to duties of conductor also, inter alia, states �no ticket once used is ever to be used again, no conductor shall pick up or have in his possession any used ticket�. Any conductor found in possession of or guilty of issuing used ticket, will be liable to dismissal and even be proceeded criminally. These executive instructions clearly state that they constitute a code of principles in practice which should be followed by every conductor rigidly and invariably. They state that any breach of these instructions shall render the conductor liable to disciplinary action as laid down in regulation 15(2) of the D.R.T. (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations 1952, as amended from time to time.

14. In the light of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the following observations made in the impugned order dated 20.04.2001 are not sustainable:

�There is no evidence on the file to show that the tickets recovered from the possession of the conductor were part of the hand block tickets issued to him by the DTC authorities. The AW has also stated that four such tickets were recovered from the passengers travelling in the bus. If the tickets recovered from the possession of the passengers were resold and were part of the hand block tickets of the respondent then the DTC could have said that the respondent resold the already sold tickets to the passengers. Merely recovery of resold tickets from the possession of the conductor did not cause any financial loss to the DTC/employer. It is not the case that those passengers were not travelling without valid tickets�. (emphasis supplied)

15. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the tribunal grossly erred in observing that there is nothing on record to show that the respondent was habitually negligent in performing his duties and was having lack of interest in the work of the employer. She submits that the past record of the respondent was placed before the tribunal and as per the past record, there were three other incidents of non issuance of tickets by the respondent after pocketing the fare. On the first occasion he was censured on 16.05.1989, on the second occasion two increments were stopped in respect of non issuance of tickets on 06.07.1990. The third occasion � wherein he had not issued tickets to 20 passengers of 7 groups and 1 other passenger after pocketing the fare, was pending enquiry, when the respondent committed the misconduct in question.�

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that no loss was caused to the DTC inasmuch as there was no allegation that the appellant had sold the used tickets to any passenger of the bus. While enroute, the conductor noticed that two passengers had possibly not bought tickets. He moved from his seat to the front of the bus and confronted the two passengers who said that they had tickets and they showed him two tickets. When the conductor said that they are not tickets of this bus, they quickly stuffed Rs.4/- in his hand and de-boarded the bus, resultantly he was in possession of the excess money and two unrelated tickets. He submits that at that very moment, the checking party boarded the bus and found the so-called excess Rs.4/- and the two used tickets on his person and the ten other tickets strewn on the floor of the bus, which were picked up and made part of the Department�s case against him. However, the conductor did sign the 12 used tickets as having been found in his possession and not necessarily on the floor of the bus.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant seeks reversal of the direction that the amounts received by the appellant during the period of his suspension be returned to him. This court finds no reason to interfere with the said direction because the appellant received monies while he did not render any service to DTC. In the circumstances, this contention and request is rejected.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent opposes the arguments of the appellant. She submits that no error has been caused by the DTC. Boarding the bus by the �checking party� was a normal exercise to keep vigilance apropos collection of monies by DTC�s conductors, as well as the manner in which the buses were plied on the specified routes. She submits that the appellant has no case and the appeal should be dismissed.
7. There is also nothing on the record to show that the checking party was prejudiced against the appellant. None of the issues now sought to be raised were raised in the defence set up by him. Furthermore, para 15 quoted hereinabove shows that the appellant was in lapse of duty apropos non-issuance of tickets to passengers on 3 occasions and had pocketed the fare.

8. In view of the above, this court does not find any merit in the case. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

NAJMI WAZIRI, J

GAURANG KANTH, J
JANUARY 4, 2023
RW

2023/DHC/001662

LPA 306/2014 Page 1 of 6