Non-examination of passengers in a domestic inquiry does not vitiate the inquiry, and the principles of natural justice are not violated if passenger witnesses are not examined or produced for cross-examination.

SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.

( 1 ) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of award dated 5th September, 2006 passed by Labour Court XXI, Karkardooma, Delhi whereby the reference was answered against the petitioner.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts are that the petitioner was working as a conductor with the respondent. On 9th September, 1993 he was on duty at bus No. 9867 from Delhi to sharanpur. His bus was checked at 6. 20 PM at Jalalabad by the ATIs Sohan Lal, zile Singh and Balbir Singh. Two passengers were found getting down the bus without tickets. They were held up for being without tickets. They told that they had paid Rs. 20/- to the conductor for issuance of tickets. The conductor had taken the fare but not issued tickets. The conductor was confronted with the passengers and the conductor admitted his guilt and gave 2 unpunched tickets to the ticket checkers. The ticket checkers recorded the statements of passengers and obtained the signature of conductor. They boarded the bus and in the running bus, they prepared challan and gave it to conductor. They also checked rest of the passengers who were found having tickets. A charge sheet was issued to the conductor on 22nd October, 1993 and an inquiry was conducted for not issuing tickets to the passengers after receiving fare from them. In the inquiry he was found guilty and he was removed from service by the disciplinary authority. He raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour court in following terms :

"whether the removal of Shri Mahavir Singh from service by the management is illegal and/or unjustified, and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect"

( 3 ) THE Labour Court framed an issue about the fairness of inquiry and after considering the entire evidence came to conclusion that the inquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner. Learned Labour Court thereafter came to conclusion that the punishment awarded to the petitioner was not disproportionate to the misconduct.

( 4 ) THE petitioner has challenged the award on the ground that during inquiry the respondent had not appointed any presenting officer and it was the inquiry officer who examined the witnesses. Thus the inquiry officer acted as prosecutor as well as the judge and there was violation of principles of natural justice. The other ground taken is that as per circular of DTC, the inquiry officer was supposed to ask the workman on each date of hearing if he needed assistance of a co-worker. This question was not asked on each date of hearing and because of this, the enquiry was vitiated. The third ground is that the passengers who made statement about non issuance of tickets were not examined before the inquiry officer. It is also submitted that the Labour Court wrongly relied on DTC v. Ishwar Singh 2005 LLR 469. This ruling was not applicable in view of the circular dated 13th October, 1965. In case of passengers not coming forward, the inquiry officer should have gone to their address. It is alleged that the inquiry was conducted in a partial manner and the petitioner could not get reasonable opportunities since he was not conversant with the rules.

( 5 ) THE plea of the petitioner that the non-examination of passengers vitiated the inquiry, is not tenable. In a catena of judgments, Supreme Court and this Court has held that passengers were not the essential witnesses in a domestic inquiry and non examination of the passengers will not vitiate the inquiry. The landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in this respect is State of haryana Vs. Rattan Singh 1997 2 SCC 1991. The Supreme Court considered the situation of non examination of passengers in a similar case and held that in a domestic enquiry, the enquiry officer can take into consideration all material logically probative for a prudent mind and there was no bar on considering hearsay evidence provided it was reasonable and credible. The passengers were not required to be chas