The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of providing a full and fair opportunity for the employee to defend themselves in a disciplinary enquiry, and the justification of dismissal based on repeated misconduct and misappropriation of funds.

MANJU GOEL, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner is challenging the award of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-IX, karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Industrial dispute Case No. 1825/94 between petitioner- sheo Raj Singh and the respondent-Delhi transport Corporation (in short 'dtc' ). The petitioner was dismissed from employment of the respondent after a disciplinary enquiry. The terms of reference were, "whether the removal from service of Shri Sheo Raj Singh, is illegal and/or unjustified, arid if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect". The Presiding officer, Labour Court went into the preliminary issue as to whether the enquiry against the petitioner was proper. A charge-sheet dated "23. 2. 1987 was served on the petitioner to which the petitioner filed a reply and in the enquiry that followed the management produced evidence to prove the alleged misconduct, namely, non-issuance of a ticket to passenger who had paid the fare. The workman contended that he had not been given the full opportunity to defend himself during the enquiry and alleged in this regard that he was deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine the passengers, that the enquiry Officer acted as the presenting officer and that genuine steps to summon the concerned passengers were not taken. The labour Court observed that full and fair opportunity was given to the petitioner for cross-examining the witnesses of the management. So far as the summoning of the passengers was concerned the Labour court observed that the workman himself has not given reason as to why he could not summon those passengers in his own defence. Apparently the management played its own role in the enquiry. The workman did not substantiate the allegation that the enquiry officer himself was the presenting officer. The labour Court also observed that the petitioner was granted sufficient opportunity even to produce his own witnesses. No specific allegation was made as to how the report was bogus or biased, therefore, the preliminary issue was decided in favour of the management. After hearing the parties the labour Court finally announced its award on 16. 1. 2006. The only question which remained to be examined by the Labour Court after its finding on the preliminary issue was whether the removal was justified. The workman on this issue relied upon an office order being no. AOMI-3 (18)/65 dated 3. 1. 1966 in which instructions have been issued about the manner in which the case of non-issue of tickets, possession or sale of used tickets and issue of tickets of lesser denomination on the part of the conductors involving cheating was to be dealt with. The procedure was as under:

"1]. In case of commission of irregularity involving cheating for the first time, the Enquiry Officer should take corrective action by sending for the employee and personally cautioning him to avoid the recurrences of such a nature in future.

2]. In case the offence involving cheating in the manner indicated above is committed for the second time, any of the penalties out of warning, reprimand or censure be imposed keeping in view the extent of the gravity of the offence committed.

3]. In case the offence is repeated for the third time more severe action of stop Page of increment with or without cumulative effect, keeping in view of seriousness of the offence committed by the accused employee, be taken.

4]. In case the corrective action and the imposition of penalties, as mentioned in sub-paras 1 to 3 above have not yield the desired results and there is repetition of commission of irregularity involving cheating, the question of imposition of extreme penalty of removal or dismissal from the services of the undertaking will be considered, provided the case stands fully established against the employee concerned. . . . . . . . . . "

( 2 ) THE Labour Court after examining this office memorandum observed that the petitioner had admitted that punishment had been imposed on him in the past