The judgment establishes the importance of conducting fair inquiries in accordance with natural justice principles, emphasizing the need for summoning key witnesses and providing necessary documents to the accused.

VIPIN SANGHI, J.

1. This second appeal has been preferred under Section 100 CPC to assail the judgment dated 05.02.2011 passed by Shri Vimal Kumar Yadav, Additional District Judge – II (North), Delhi, in R.C.A. No. 13/2010 titled, ‘DTC and another Vs. Sh. Suraj Mal’. By the impugned judgment, the first appeal preferred by the appellant-DTC, who was the defendant in the suit preferred by the respondent, was dismissed.

2. The respondent was appointed as a conductor with effect from 01.04.1979 and was confirmed in the year 1979 itself. He was placed under suspension by the appellant-employer on 04.01.2001 while he was posted at Hari Nagar Depot. He was issued a charge-sheet dated 12.01.2001 by the appellant through the Depot Manager (impleaded as defendant No.2). The substance of the allegation was that on 23.12.2000, while the respondent/plaintiff was on duty on Bus No. 6447 running on route No. 8, at 7.50 p.m. the checking staff checked the bus at Sirhol Border. Two passengers were found without ticket. On being questioned, the said passengers stated that they had paid a sum of Rs. 20/- to the plaintiff at Dhaulakuan itself, but he did not issue tickets by accepting less fare than standard. On this, checking staff took unpunched tickets bearing Nos. 52252 and 52253, along with a tax of Rs. 4/- vide ticket bearing No. 54854 and 54855, along with a tax of Rs. 4/- and ticket bearing Nos. 80026 and 80027 along with a tax of Rs. 3/-. The plaintiff was charged of violation of Section 19(b), (h), (m) of rules & regulations of DTC which are applicable to DTC employees.

3. The plaintiff denied the charge-sheet vide his reply dated 15.01.2001. Since the same was not found satisfactory, a departmental inquiry was conducted. The inquiry officer gave his report dated 24.09.2001 proposing penalty to be imposed on the plaintiff as stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. The plaintiff replied to the said memo vide his letter dated 28.05.2001, which was rejected, and the said punishment was imposed on him vide order dated 07.06.2001.

4. The first appeal preferred to the Regional Manager was also rejected. He also approached the Grievance Cell, DTC on 18.09.2001, which too was rejected. He then preferred an appeal before the CMD vide representation dated 13.12.2001. The same was partially accepted, to the extent that the punishment was reduced to stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. In the meantime, the suspension of the plaintiff was revoked on 15.01.2001. The plaintiff then filed the civil suit in question, to assail the disciplinary action taken against him. The inquiry was challenged by the plaintiff primarily on the grounds:

(i) the passengers who had claimed that they had not been issued tickets despite their paying Rs. 20/- to the plaintiff, had not been summoned by the inquiry officer for the reason that the addresses given were incomplete. The plaintiff claimed that the whole case of the department was based upon the testimonies of these passengers and by not calling the witnesses, the case was substantially defeated;

(ii) no presenting officer was appointed and there was no presenting officer in the inquiry;

(iii) the inquiry officer cross-examined the charged officer i.e. the plaintiff. Thus, the inquiry officer acted as the Judge and as the prosecutor;

(iv) the list of witnesses or list of documents was not supplied to the plaintiff during the inquiry and the inquiry report was not supplied to the plaintiff;

(v) the cash with the plaintiff had not been checked and, thus, it was possible that the two passengers had falsely claimed to have made payment of Rs. 20/- to the plaintiff, in order to save themselves from the punishment of ticketless travel. The plaintiff sought a declaration that the order of suspension dated 04.01.2001; the charge-sheet dated 15.01.2001, and; the punishment imposed vide order dated 13.02.2002 by the appellant authority, are null and void, and illegal.

5. The appellant-defendant