The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a domestic inquiry to adhere to the principles of natural justice and to be supported by sufficient evidence.

Vipin Sanghi, J.

1. The petitioner workman has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to assail the order dated 17.10.2001, as well as the award dated 05.09.2003 passed by the Labour Court-VII in I.D. No.956/96. By the first order dated 17.10.2001, the Labour Court decided the preliminary issue with regard to the legality and validity of the domestic inquiry conducted by the respondent, in favour of the respondent, and by the subsequent award dated 05.09.2003 the reference made by the Appropriate Government on 15.11.1996 with regard to the removal of the petitioner from service was answered in favour of the respondent by holding that the punishment of removal from service was not disproportionate to the misconduct proved against the petitioner. A charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner by the respondent management on 28.05.1992. The charge against the petitioner was that on 15.05.1992, while he was working as Conductor in Bus No.9651, the said bus was checked at 15:47 hours by the checking officials at Guru Tegh Bahadur Nagar. According to them, it was found that the petitioner had issued an already sold ticket to one passenger, who was travelling from Azadpur to Camp. The statement of the passenger was recorded. The passenger stated that he had boarded the said bus from Azadpur for going to Camp. He had paid Re.1 to the Conductor and the petitioner had issued one ticket to him. He doubted that he had been issued an already sold ticket. W hen the bus reached Camp, the checking officials checked the bus. On such checking, it was found that the petitioner Conductor had issued an already sold ticket to him. The case of the respondent was that the checking officials prepared the challan (Exhibit MW-1/1). The statement of the passenger was recorded (Exhibit MW-1/2), which bears his signatures and complete address. The charge sheet put the petitioner to notice that, while passing the final order in the matter, his past record shall be kept in view.

2. A departmental inquiry followed since the petitioner denied the charges against him. The Inquiry Officer made his report, finding the petitioner guilty of all the charges leveled against him. The inquiry proceedings recorded that letters were sent to the passenger on three occasions on 17.07.1992, 24.07.1992 & 31.07.1992, but the passenger did not appear before the Inquiry Officer. The petitioner was granted opportunity to bring his own witnesses in defence. The petitioner, however, did not produce any witness apart from himself. He gave his final statement on 07.08.1992. In response to the show-cause notice proposing to remove him from service, the petitioner sent a communication on 20.08.1992 seeking certain information from the respondent. On the basis of the inquiry report, the respondent passed the order of removal of the petitioner from service.

3. The Labour Court by the impugned order dated 17.10.2001 held that the inquiry had been properly conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The submission of the petitioner - that the passenger had not been produced in the inquiry proceedings, was rejected, since three attempts appear to have been made to summon the passenger, and it was not necessary to produce the passenger in these circumstances - as held by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Another Vs. Rattan Singh, (1982) I LLJ 46.

4. The Labour Court -on a perusal of the inquiry proceedings, and on the application of the judgment in Rattan Singh(supra) concluded that a fair & proper inquiry had been held against the petitioner by granting him fair opportunity. It could not be said that there was no evidence produced in the enquiry, on the basis of which the findings of guilt were returned. The Labour Court held that the inquiry report reflects application of mind by the Inquiry Officer to the pleadings and evidence produced before him. The same revealed that the report of the Inquiry Officer duly c