- (1.) CHALLENGE in the present writ petition is to the award dated 04.09.2000 (Annexure P12) whereby the workman, who has now expired, was directed to be reinstated with continuity in service and full back wages.
(2.) THE reasoning given by the Labour Court was that domestic enquiry, held by the Management, was not fair and proper and it had been held so under issue No.1, decided on an earlier point of time, i.e., on 28.12.1998. It was noticed that the copy of the enquiry report was not given to the workman and it had been admitted by Chand Singh MW1, in his cross -examination. The workman, who was working as a Conductor, was alleged to have illegally received Rs. 171/ - from the passengers and it was held that he had not embezzled the money since the inspecting party never checked the cash -book and there was no evidence worth the name that there was any entrustment of money to the passengers which he could have misappropriated. The tickets had not been compared with the already sold tickets and thus, an adverse inference was drawn against the Management and it was held that the punishment could not be sustained on such a charge, being violative of the principles of natural justice.
(3.) THE factual matrix of the case go on to show that the petitioner was appointed as a Conductor on 10.08.1976 and during the course of his duties, he was on the bus which was checked on 07.07.1990 which was travelling from Ludhiana to Moga. The show cause notice was issued to him on 17.07.1990 and an enquiry officer was appointed on 07.09.1990. The enquiry officer came to the conclusion that he had committed a fraud to the tune of Rs. 171/ - as he had charged the said amount from the passengers from Ludhiana to Moga. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 24.10.1991 was issued to him as to why his services should not be terminated on account of fraud to which he filed reply dated 12.11.1991. Taking into account his reply, his two yearly increments were stopped temporarily and he was held not entitled to any more amount received during the suspension period, vide order dated 30.12.1992. However, the Transport Commissioner issued show cause notice on 01.02.1993 and keeping in view the earlier service record, came to the conclusion that he was habitual of committing fraud and issued show cause notice under Rule 14 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987, as to why this punishment should not be enhanced to that of dismissal from service. Thereafter, the services of the workman were dispensed with vide order dated 25/29.03.1993. The said order was upheld in appeal by the Secretary to the Government on 14.10.1993/08.11.1993. Resultantly, the matter was referred to the Labour Court and claim statement was filed in which the plea taken was that the enquiry officer had not provided any opportunity to the applicant to examine the witnesses, produced on behalf of the Management. The order stopping the two annual increments was also challenged apart from the order of dismissal. It was further pointed out that without affording any personal hearing to the applicant, the order of dismissal was passed. In the written statement, the plea taken by the Managementpetitioner was that the workman had charged '5/ - each from 10 passengers, totaling to Rs. 50/ - from Ludhiana to Tagranwa and not issuing travelling tickets to them and charged '9/ - each from 15 passengers from Ludhiana to Moga and issued them less value tickets @ '8/ - each and having three punches each and one old ticket of '1/ - and accordingly, the old tickets of Rs. 121/ - were issued and thus, had committed a fraud of Rs. 171/ -. The enquiry officer had completed the enquiry without any pressure and fear and the workman had been given full opportunity and thereafter, the punishment of stoppage of two increments was issued. The Transport Commissioner had issued show cause notice to the petitioner and thereafter, terminated his service, which is correct and on the basis of the rules.;