- (1.) By way of this intra-Court appeal, the petitioner-appellant seeks to question the order dated 05.09.2013 passed in CWP No. 8478/2013 whereby, the learned single Judge of this Court has dismissed in limine the writ petition against the award dated 21.12.2012, as made in Industrial Dispute Case No. 11/2010 whereby, the Labour Court, Bhilwara found justified the order dated 30-7-2002 passed by the respondent-employer imposing the penalty of removal from service upon the appellant after domestic inquiry. In brief, the relevant background aspects of the matter are that the appellant, while serving as conductor with the respondent Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation ('the Corporation'), was assigned the duties on a vehicle enroute Bhiiwara to Sardarshahar on 26.07.2001. Upon checking, the vehicle incharge of the appellant was found carrying 10 passengers without tickets; and the way bill was also not duly filled in. A regular inquiry was conducted into the charges of misconduct leveled against the appellant wherein, his past record was also made a part of the charge-sheet. After due inquiry, wherein the appellant participated and adduced evidence, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 25.08.2001 finding all the charges proved. The Disciplinary Authority afforded opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant and, thereafter, in its detailed order dated 30.07.2002, held the appellant guilty of misconduct. The Disciplinary Authority also referred to 12 past cases of misconduct registered against the appellant of which, 3 were pending decision but in other 9 cases, he was penalized from time to time. The Disciplinary Authority ultimately proceeded to award the punishment of removal from service upon the appellant. Aggrieved, the appellant raised an industrial dispute which was referred by the State Government for adjudication to the Labour Court. In its order dated 15.06.2012, the Labour Court found the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation fair and proper. Then, after due consideration of the record of the inquiry proceedings as also the evidence led by the parties, the Labour Court, in its impugned award dated 21.12.2012, found baseless the suggestions made by the appellant in defence. The Labour Court, therefore, answered the reference in favour of the Corporation while holding that termination of services of the appellant by the respondent-Corporation for the proved misconduct was just and proper.
(2.) Seeking to question the award so made by the Labour Court, the petitioner-appellant essentially reiterated the stand as taken in defence in the inquiry proceedings. It was emphasized that the passengers in question had boarded the bus just before the inspecting team intercepted and the appellant did not get proper time to issue the tickets. It was also contended that the appellant had not realized the fare from the passengers and, thus, in the absence of a charge of corruption or embezzlement, the penalty of removal from service was apparently disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct alleged. It was further contended that the Disciplinary Authority took into consideration the past record of the appellant, which was not permissible in law.
(3.) The learned single Judge found all the contentions made on behalf of the petitioner devoid of substance. The learned Single Judge observed that the finding arrived at by the Labour Court holding the appellant guilty was essentially a finding of fact which was neither capricious nor perverse so as to warrant interference in the writ jurisdiction. The learned single Judge further referred to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. B.S. Hullikatti, 2001 2 SCC 574 and Regional Manager, RSRTC v. Ghanshyam Sharma, 2002 10 SCC 330and observed that mere non-realisation of fare was of no effect; and carrying passengers without ticket was that of a gross misconduct. As regards the past record too, the learned single Judge noticed that the same was made the part of the charge-sheet and was not controverted by the appellant by producing any evidence to the contrary. The learned single Judge referred to the past record of the appellant and observed that even in the past, he was found carrying the passengers without tickets but he was let-off with minor punishments but he did not improve and indulged again in the act of misconduct and hence, no fault could be seen in the quantum of punishment.;