AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vinod K. Sharma, J.—The Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer, for issuance of a writ, in the nature of certiorari, to quash the award passed by the learned Labour Court, Trichirappalli, in answering the reference against the Petitioner.
The Petitioner was working as ''Conductor'' with the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., since 1985. The Petitioner was charged with misappropriation of fund, on 9.6.2000 and was placed under suspension, on 16.06.2000. The domestic enquiry was held against the Petitioner, in which, he was held guilty of the charge of misappropriation, and accordingly, 2nd show cause notice was issued against the proposed punishment.
Finding the explanation given by the Petitioner to be not satisfactory, he was ordered to be dismissed from service.
The Petitioner raised an industrial dispute against the order of dismissal, which was referred to the learned Labour Court. The petition was contested wherein the stand of the Management was, that the Petitioner was on duty, in bus bearing registration No. TN45-N-1217, on 03.05.2000 on Karur to Trichy route. The checking inspector checked the bus near Trichy Head office around 3.10 p.m. The fare mentioned in four tickets were illegible and the checking inspector accordingly wrote the fare as Rs. 29/- [Rupees Twenty nine only] in the invoice and concluded the checking.
The invoice was verified from 28.05.2000 to 02.6.2000, wherein correction, in the fare, in 4 counter foils was detected.
The checking inspector asked the passengers, to travel in the bus and bring the tickets. The bus passengers boarded the bus TN-45-N-1217 on 9.6.2000 at Pettavaithalai and travelled to Trichy. The Petitioner received a sum of Rs. 36.25/- [Rupees Thirty six and Twenty five paise only] as fare from 5 passengers and issued 4 tickets.
The statement of those passengers, was also recorded, but subsequently, it was found that the fare in the ticket was altered and shown as Rs. 2.25/- [Rupees Two and Twenty five paise only] instead of Rs. 7.25/- [Rupees Seven and Twenty five paise only] for each ticket. Thus, the Petitioner misappropriated a sum of Rs. 15/- [Rupees Fifteen only].
On appreciation of evidence, the Enquiry Officer held that Petitioner guilty. The Petitioner was also found to be guilty of misconduct, on seven occasions earlier.
The Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner did not challenge the fairness of the domestic enquiry and made an endorsement in this regard.
In-spite of fact that, the endorsement was made by the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, before the learned Labour Court, not to question the fairness of domestic enquiry, the learned Labour Court, still went into the merit of the allegations and recorded that the charges against the Petitioner stood proved.
The documentary evidence was looked into by the learned Labour Court, to record Petitioner guilty. The learned Labour Court, held that the findings of the Enquiry Officer could not be said to be perverse, or not based on evidence. The learned Labour Court, thereafter considered the question, whether the punishment awarded was harsh and grossly disproportionate to the nature of misconduct.
The learned Labour Court, by relying on the judgment of the Hon''ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of A. Venkat Rao v. Depot Manager Charminar Depot APSRTC Hyderabad and Ors. (2004) LLR 186 and that of the Hon''ble Karnataka High Court, in the case of B. Krishnappa v. The Managing Director, Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Bangalore, (2003) LLR 411, held that the punishment for dismissal could not be said to be harsh or disproportionate in case of proved charge of misappropriation of funds.
The reliance was also placed on the judgment of this Court, in the case of The Management of Dheeran Chinnamalai Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Presiding Officer Labour Court (2002) LLR 1096, to uphold the punishment of dismissal.
The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, challenged the finding of the learned Labour Court, by contending that the charge of misappropriation against the Petitioner was not proved, as none of the passengers were examined by the Enquiry Officer during the domestic enquiry, and that the finding was recorded on the sole statement of the checking inspector, which was merely on hearsay.
It is also the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the finding of the enquiry officer, as also the learned Labour Court are based on conjuncture and presumption, thus being perverse cannot be sustained, in law.
On consideration, I find no force in the contentions raised by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
The fairness of the enquiry was not challenged before the learned Labour Court. In-spite of that, the learned Labour Court recorded an independent finding, holding that the charges against the Petitioner stood proved.
It is now well settled that in the domestic enquiry, hearsay, evidence is admissible. The evidence of the checking inspector was based on the documentary evidence of ticket''s counter foils. The documentary evidence was duly exhibited on record, therefore, it cannot be said that that finding is based on, no evidence or perverse, as contended by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
The punishment of dismissal also cannot be said to be too harsh or disproportionate to charge of misappropriation of fund, which is serious misconduct. The punishment of the dismissal from service, therefore, cannot be said too harsh or disproportionate to proved charges.
No merit. "Dismissed".
No costs.