The main legal point established in the judgment is that the burden of proof lies with the appellant to establish misconduct, and reliance on previous case law must be relevant to the specific facts of the case.

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against an order dated 10. 2. 2004 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the appellant's Writ Petition (C) No. 65 of 2002 thereby upholding an order dated 27. 4. 2001 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in o. P. No 204/1993.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the respondent was appointed with the appellant Corporation in February 1981 as a conductor. While he was on duty on 29. 10. 1992 on the bus No. DBP-6458 from Delhi to Ganga Nagar, an Assistant Ticket Inspector (ATI) along with other members of the ticket checking staff boarded the said bus at Sher Pur (Sirsa) and found that four persons were travelling in the bus without tickets. It is the appellant's case that those passengers disclosed that they boarded the bus at fatehabad for going to Sirsa and had paid Rs. 36/- as fare charges to the respondent who had not issued them tickets. On the basis of the report of the checking staff, the Depot Manager issued a chargesheet on 20. 11. 1992 to the respondent charging him with misconduct within the meaning of paras 19 (b) and (m) of the Standing Orders governing the conduct of the DTC employees.

( 3 ) THE charge sheet issued to the respondent workman reads as under : "you are required to explain, why a disciplinary action should not be taken against you under the provision of Delhi Road Transport Corporation (Amended Act, 1971 read with Section 15 (2) of Delhi Transport Corporation (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Rules, 1952 for the following irregularities :-'on 20. 10. 2002 you was performing your duty on Bus No. 6458 of Route No. Delhi to Ganga Nagar, Checking staff boarded the said bus at 10. 35 at Sharpur (Sirsa) and found that a group of four passengers was travelling in the bus without ticket. It was informed by those passengers that they boarded into the bus at Fatehabad for going to Sirsa and had paid Rs. 35/- as fare charges to the conductor. However, the conductor did not issue them tickets. ' your above mentioned conduct is against the norms of duty of conductor under paras 6 and 7 and also misconduct within the meaning of para 19 (b) and (m)of the standing orders governing the conduct of DTC employees. "

( 4 ) CLAUSE 19 (b) and (m) of the standing orders, referred to in the charge sheet, reads as under :"19 (b) Theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with the Authority business or property; 19 (m) Any other activity not specifically covered above, but which is prime facie detrimental with interest of the organization. "

( 5 ) IN the enquiry that followed, Shri Balbir Singh, ATI was examined on behalf of the appellant. The Enquiry Officer came to the following conclusion after examining the witnesses:"in the light of the above I am of the view that may be Conductor should not be of bad conduct but it is sure that he himself in his reply of the chargesheet and in final statement has accepted that there were four passengers in his bus and were travelling without tickets. Now question is that passengers were boarded from Fatehabad to Sirsa and bus was checked at Sher Pur (Sirsa ). But till that place Conductor did not issued tickets to passengers. Therefore, the charge is proved. "

( 6 ) ACCEPTING the report of the Enquiry Officer, the Depot Manager imposed the punishment of removal from the services of the appellant with effect from 8. 4. 1993.

( 7 ) IN view of the pending industrial dispute concerning the grant of revised wages consequent upon the Report of the Fourth Pay Commission, the appellant filed an application before the Industrial Tribunal under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (`id Act') seeking approval of the tribunal of its decision to remove the respondent from its services. The appellant remitted one months' wages to the respondent as required under the said provision.

( 8 ) THE Tribunal, after noticing that the charge against the respondent was that he collected fare charges of