The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of contemporaneous documents and the duty of the disciplinary authority to establish their case in cases of misconduct by employees.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

1. The Delhi Transport Corporation in this Letters Patent Appeal impugns the judgment dated 9th September, 2014, whereby W.P. (C) No. 1462/2011 filed by the appellant challenging and assailing the Award dated 1st April, 2010 passed by the Labour Court has been dismissed.

2. The respondent-Mohinder Singh was appointed as a conductor with the appellant Corporation with effect from 1st April, 1979. On 16th December, 1992, he was charge-sheeted for failure to issue tickets to 15 passengers on 25th November, 1992 who had paid the full fare, onboard Bus No. D.S.P. 9439 from Delhi to Tanakpur route. The respondent was removed from service on 14th November 1994. Reference dated 11th November, 1996 was made to the Labour Court on the question whether the respondents removal from service was illegal and unjustified and, if so, what relief and directions could be granted.

3. By the order dated 2nd June, 2009, on the preliminary issue, the Labour Court held that non-supply of documents pertaining to the charge had caused serious prejudice and had prevented the respondent from putting forth an effective defence. Accordingly, the appellant-Corporation was granted the liberty to lead evidence to prove and establish misconduct on merits.

4. The management then led evidence by way of affidavits filed by Rajbir Singh and Satish Kumar, who were both members of the checking team that found 15 passengers on board the bus who had paid the full fare but were not issued tickets by the respondent while on duty as a conductor on Bus No. D.S.P. 9439.

5. Rajbir Singh, MW1 in his affidavit deposed that he, along with the checking team of Jaichand, Sohan Lal and Satish Kumar, had checked the bus No. D.S.P. 9439 at Nawab Ganj and found 15 passengers to be ticketless despite having paid the full fare. Further, the respondent had informed them that 44 passengers had boarded the bus from Bareilly and 29 passengers had been issued tickets. The passengers were confronted with the respondent, who had then admitted his fault and surrendered 15 un-punched tickets. He denied the suggestion that the respondent was in the process of issuing tickets to the remaining passengers. To the suggestion that there was a considerable distance of 14 kilometres between Office Ganj and Nawab Ganj, Rajbir Singh had voluntarily stated that stage for issuing tickets was over. He, however, accepted as correct that no one from the checking team had made any endorsement on the waybill as to which stage or at what point they had boarded the bus. However, such endorsement had been made by the members on their own sheet. Rajbir Singh accepted that statements of two of the passengers were not recorded on the overleaf of the challan, but on a separate paper and affirmed that the respondent-conductor had signed the said statements. He denied the suggestion that the respondent had signed blank papers or that the vigilance team had torn 15 un-punched tickets from respondents handbook of the tickets, voluntarily adding that the respondent had surrendered the un-punched tickets. He had testified that the statements of the passengers were written by the passengers themselves and not by Sohan Lal. He reiterated that the way voucher was incomplete. Copies of the challan, un-punched tickets, passengers statements and the report of the vigilance team were exhibited.

6. It may be noted that a similar affidavit was filed by Satish Kumar, who had also appeared as a witness in the Labour Court on 16h September, 2009, but his cross-examination was deferred at the request of the counsel for the respondent. The subsequent order dated 9th October, 2009 records that Satish Kumar was dropped by the management as a witness. P.K. Rao, the disciplinary authority, had also appeared as a witness on behalf of the management in the Labour Court and given the details of the enquiry against the respondent. Sohan Lal was not examined as a witness as he was no longer in service of the appellant-Corpo