The court emphasized the importance of conducting a fair and just enquiry under Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act, and highlighted the need for substantial evidence to prove alleged misconduct.

JUDGMENT

Gaurang Kanth, J. The present petition has been filed under the Article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned orders dated 06.01.2003 ("Impugned order-I") and 01.05.2003 ("Impugned order-II") passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-II, Karkardooma Court, Delhi ("Labour Court") in O.P. No.452/92. Vide the Impugned order-I, the learned Labour Court held that the Petitioner/Corporation failed to produce the enquiry officer, in absence of whom the proceedings were not proved, and hence the enquiry proceeding was vitiated. Learned Labour Court vide the Impugned order-II dismissed the application filed by the Petitioner/Corporation under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("I.D. Act") on the grounds that the applicant failed to prove alleged misconduct against the Respondent.

FACTS RELEVANT FOR THE ADJUDICATION OF THE MATTER

2. The Respondent was appointed by the Petitioner/Corporation as a conductor in the year 1982. On 31.08.1992, the Respondent was on duty in Bus no. 9115 running in route from Lajpat Nagar to Faridabad. The said bus was checked by the inspection staff of the Petitioner/Corporation. Allegedly, upon the inspection it was found that two passengers were travelling in the said bus without any ticket. On asking the passengers, they stated that they have paid full fare to the Respondent, but he refused to issue any ticket to them. Statement of ticketless passengers was recorded by Sh. Sukhbir Singh, T.I. which was also signed by the Respondent. Thereafter a checking report was prepared and submitted on 31.8.1992 by Sh. Pran Nath, ATI; Sh. Darshan Singh, Trff. Supt.; Sh. Sukhbir Singh, T.I. and Sh. P.L. Arora, ATI.

3. On the basis of the abovesaid report, a chargesheet dated 14.09.1992 was issued by the Depot Manager, Nehru Place Depot to the Respondent to which the Respondent submitted his reply dated 21.09.1992. The chargesheet dated 14.09.1992 has been reproduced herein below:

"It is expected of you that you give on explanation why disciplinary proceedings be not taken against you under Delhi Road Transport law (Amendment) Act, 1971 read with section 15 (2) of the Delhi Road Transport Authority (Appointment and Service Conductors Regulations, 1952 for the following irregularities.

On 31.8.92, you were on duty on bus No. 9115, the bus was checked by the inspection staff, it was found that the group 2 passengers alighted without ticket who were traveling from Ashram to Gurukul Sarai and on enquiry it was stated by the group leader that he paid Rs.5/- to the conductor for two tickets on demand and conductor did not issue any tickets to him. On demand of tickets he said to get down without it. This act of your is misconduct within the meaning of section 19 (b)(f) and (m) of the Permanent Standing Order governing the conduct of employees of the DTC.

On the basis of which report the chargesheet is based the copy of same is enclosed. A copy of your previous record is also annexed. This will be kept in view at the time of passing final orders in this matter or at the time of giving recommendations. If you want personal hearing, then request for it in your explanation.

Your explanation should reach this office within 10 days of receipt of this charge sheet. If you fail to do so then the matter will be decided on merit without giving you any further information."

4. An enquiry was held qua the charges. During the course of the enquiry, statement of Sh. Pran Nath, ATI, Sh. Sukhbir Singh, Tr. Supt., Sh. Darshan Singh, Tr. Supt., and Sh. P.L. Arora, ATI were recorded. Respondent filed the closing statement on 29.03.1993 wherein he denied the charges levelled against him and prayed for exoneration from all such charges.

5. The Inquiry Officer on 31.03.1993, submitted the enquiry report in which he found all the charges levelled against the Respondent fully proved and forward the case to the depot manager.

6. In pursuance of the enquiry report dated 31.03.1993, the de