The main legal point established in the judgment is that the evidence presented must be credible and sufficient to prove misconduct in employment cases.

S. Muralidhar, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 19th April 2017 of the learned Single Judge of this Court allowing W.P.(C) 5590/2013 filed by the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC), the Respondent herein, and holding that the charge against late Shri Ambika Ram, who worked as a Conductor with the DTC, stood proved and the punishment of removal from service imposed upon him was justified.

2. It requires to be noted that late Shri Ambika Ram expired during the pendency of the writ petition and by order dated 8th November, 2010, his legal representatives (LRs) were brought on record. They have filed the resent appeal. For the sake of convenience, however, hereafter in this order the term “Appellant” will be used to refer to late Shri Ambika Ram.

3. The background facts as mentioned in the charge sheet issued to the Appellant on 7th August 1992 by the Depot Manager (Pataparganj Depot), are that whilst the Appellant was on duty as Conductor on Bus No.9211 on Route No. 328 on 27th July 1992, the checking staff [which comprised Shri Khacheru Singh, Ticket Inspector (TI) later examined as Management Witness AW-I and Shri Roop Chand TI (AW-2)] stopped the bus at Karkardooma stand. During checking they found that one passenger was in possession of a Rs. 1/- ticket. On being asked, the said passenger told the checking staff that he had given the Appellant Rs.2/- but the conductor had issued him only a Rs. 1/- ticket. On that basis, an inquiry was conducted against the Appellant.

4. To understand the proceedings in the proper perspective, it requires to be noted that the precise charge against the Appellant was that despite taking the full fare of Rs. 2/-from the passenger, the Appellant had issued him a ticket of lesser denomination i.e. Re. 1/-, thus pocketing Re. 1/- and that this amounted to misconduct in terms of para 19 (b) & (m) of the Standing Orders applicable to DTC employees.

5. In the inquiry proceedings, as noted by the Inquiry Officer (IO), the passenger in question was called three times by sending letters but he did not appear. In the inquiry proceedings, apart from the aforementioned two TIs, one Shri Murari Lal was also examined. Even in the inquiry proceedings, all three TIs clearly stated that the cash bag with the conductor was not checked and further there was no independent witness to speak as to what transpired. The Appellant took the stand that the charges against him were erroneous. He claimed that the passenger in question was below twelve years of age and therefore he had issued a Rs. 1/- ticket instead of Rs. 2/- ticket as per the existing rule. The IO, on the basis of the statements of the three TIs, concluded in his report dated 29th January, 1993 as under:

“The accused did not sign the statement of the passenger but the claim of the accused that the passenger was below twelve years of age when the complainant and his colleagues have told his age to be between 40-45 years of age, is not acceptable. Un-punched ticket was also issued, in view of this and also the complainant’s and his witness’s statements, the facts verify that the charge laid on the accused is found true and proved.”

6. On the basis of the above inquiry report, a show cause notice was served on the Appellant proposing the penalty of removal from service and granting him an opportunity to make a representation against the charge leveled against him. Subsequently, by an order dated 30th April 1994, the Appellant was removed from service.

7. The Appellant thereafter preferred an application under Section 33(ii) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Industrial Tribunal-II Karkardooma (“Tribunal”) seeking approval of the removal order. A preliminary issue was framed by the Tribunal whether the domestic inquiry held by the DTC was legal. The said preliminary issue was decided by the Tribunal by an order dated 5th May 1997 in favour of the Appellant holding the inquiry to be illegal and in violation of the principles