1. Employee removed from service for collecting fares without issuing tickets — Industrial dispute regarding the validity of the removal and the evidence relied upon. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2017 Supreme(SC) 1637
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.K. AGRAWAL, ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.
A.P.S.R.T.C., REP. BY DEPOT MANAGER - Appellant
VERSUS
G. MURALI - Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3037 OF 2010
Decided On : 13-07-2017
Important Points
The lack of opportunity for cross-examination of witnesses can lead to the exoneration of the accused from certain charges in disciplinary proceedings.
Subject
Employment Law - Disciplinary Proceedings
Headnote
Cross-examination - Industrial Dispute - The court upheld the decision of the Industrial Court exonerating the respondent from certain charges due to lack of opportunity for cross-examination of witnesses.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a conductor, was accused of not issuing tickets to certain passengers despite collecting the fare. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated, and the Enquiry Officer found some charges proved, leading to the respondent's removal from service. The Industrial Court later found some charges not proved due to lack of opportunity for cross-examination.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the decision of the Industrial Court, stating that the respondent was exonerated from certain charges due to the lack of opportunity for cross-examination of witnesses. The court found no illegality in the impugned order passed by the High Court and dismissed the appeal.
Issues: The issues revolved around the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent, the findings of the Industrial Court, and the legality of the impugned order passed by the High Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of opportunity for cross-examination of witnesses, leading to the exoneration of the respondent from certain charges by the Industrial Court.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and no order as to costs was given.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. G.N. Reddy, AOR.
For the Respondent: Mr. A. Ramesh, Adv., Mr. Syed Ahmad Naqvi, Adv. For Mr. A. Venayagam Balan, AOR.
For the Appellant : Mr. G.N. Reddy, AOR.
For the Respondent: Mr. A. Ramesh, Adv., Mr. Syed Ahmad Naqvi, Adv. For Mr. A. Venayagam Balan, AOR.
Table of Contents
2. Appellant contested the Industrial Court's decision to exonerate the employee from certain charges and the subsequent reduction of the penalty. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Exoneration from charges is proper when witnesses are not produced for cross-examination, particularly when the employee has specifically denied the allegations. (Para 5 )
4. Statements recorded from witnesses are inadmissible as evidence if the accused is denied the opportunity to cross-examine them. (Para 3 , 5 )
5. Appeal dismissed and the order of the High Court upheld. (Para 6 )
6. Does the failure to produce witnesses for cross-examination affect the validity of charges in disciplinary proceedings?
Yes, if the employee denies the charges, the failure to produce witnesses for cross-examination means that statements recorded from those witnesses cannot be taken as evidence to prove the charges. (Para 3 , 5 )
7. Can a court interfere with an Industrial Tribunal's decision to reduce a penalty if the findings on charges are based on sound grounds?
No, if the Industrial Court's findings regarding the exoneration of charges are based on good grounds, such as the denial of cross-examination, the decision does not call for interference. (Para 5 )
ORDER :
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and order dated 30th June, 2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad.
2. It appears that the respondent was working as a Conductor in the appellant-Corporation. On 16th June, 1994 he was on duty as Conductor in Bus No.1199. A surprise check was conducted by the TTI who found that certain passengers have not been issued tickets, even though the fare was collected by the respondent. The statements of the passengers were recorded. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated and the Enquiry Officer found all the charges proved and order of removal from service was passed by the disciplinary authority.
3. The matter was taken by way of industrial dispute being ID No.189/95 and the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal vide order dated 30th December, 1999 had held that the charges 2 to 5 stand not proved for the simple reason that the statements of the passengers which were relied upon by the appellant-Corporation was specifically denied by the respondent and he had stated that he had issued all the tickets for which the fare was charged and the allegation that no ticket was issued is false. The Industrial Court had held that as the passengers were not produced in the enquiry, the statement recorded by the TTI from the passengers cannot be taken in evidence, as no opportunity was given to the respondent to cross-examine. Consequently, the Industrial Court had held that charges 2 to 5 have not been proved. So far as the remaining charges 1 and 6 are concerned, it was held to be proved and therefore the Industrial Court reduced the penalty from removal of service to stoppage of three increments. The appellant challenged the order by filing a Writ Petition before the learned Single Judge who dismissed the same.
4. Feeling aggrieved, Writ Appeal was filed which was also dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment. We find that the order of the Industrial Court exonerating the respondent from charges 2 to 5 are on good grounds and do not call for any interference, as the passengers were not produced for cross-examination specifically when the respondent had denied the charges of collecting fare and non-issuing of tickets.
6. We do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the High Court. The appeal fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.
