Gujarat High Court
Sureshbhai Mohanbhai Patel vs Divisional Controller, Gujarat State … on 13 January, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17279/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17279 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
==========================================================
SURESHBHAI MOHANBHAI PATEL
Versus
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION
==========================================================
Appearance:
ANURADHA G RATHOD(7717) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR GK RATHOD(2386) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR HAMESH C NAIDU(5335) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 13/01/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, challenging the judgment and
award passed by the learned labour Court, Godhra, in
Reference (T) No.6 of 2021, dated 08.08.2022, whereby
the Reference filed by the petitioner, raising the dispute
of termination from the service, came to be rejected.
2. Facts to discuss for disposal of the case are that the
petitioner was working as a conductor, Badge No.1896,
with the respondent corporation since 10.01.1998. The
petitioner was made permanent in the service with effect
from 17.03.2009. On 31.10.2018, when the petitioner
was on duty at the route from Pandharpur to Surat, the
bus was checked by a checking squad at village Miraj,
Maharashtra. It was found that the petitioner had not
issued tickets to fourteen passengers after collecting
Page 1 of 10
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Jan 20 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 20 21:19:48 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17279/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2025
undefined
fare. Therefore, a departmental inquiry was conducted,
and on completion of departmental inquiry, the order of
dismissal was passed on 28.03.2019. Against the said
order of punishment, the petitioner has preferred first
departmental appeal before the first appellate authority,
which was rejected on 22.01.2022 and thereafter second
departmental appeal was also preferred, and the same
was also rejected on 16.07.2020. Challenging the above
orders, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute, which
was registered before the learned labour Court, Godhra
being Reference (T) No.6 of 2021, wherein the statement
of claim came to be filed by the petitioner and written
statement was filed by the respondent-corporation. After
considering the oral as well as the documentary
evidence, learned labour Court has rejected the
Reference, which is the subject matter of challenge
before this Court.
3. Heard the learned advocate Ms.Anuradha Rathod for the
petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Hamesh Naidu for the
respondent.
4. Learned advocate Ms.Rathod submits that the process
issuing tickets to the passengers was going on
meanwhile, checking squad came and recorded the
statement of the passenger, who submitted that the
petitioner has collected the half fare, but, did not issue
the tickets. Learned advocate Ms.Rathod submits that as
the said passengers were Maharashtian and were
Page 2 of 10
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Jan 20 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 20 21:19:48 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17279/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2025
undefined
speaking in Marathi language, there was a dispute with
regard to the change in the tickets, and they were not
inclined to take the full ticket from the person, who
attained the major age. As this is the routine practice of
the passengers, who are travelling from Maharashtra.
The passengers were forcing the petitioner to issue the
half tickets, and as the petitioner has found that the full
ticket is required to be issued, the discussion was going
on when the checking squad entered into the bus. The
checking squad entered from the village Miraj and
destination of the passengers was at Ahmednagar, which
is far from the village Miraj. Due to above dispute, the
tickets were not issued at the time when the Checking
Inspector entered into the bus.
4.1. Learned advocate Ms.Rathod submits that the
statement of the passengers who are travelling in the
bus were recorded; however, they were not examined
during the departmental inquiry. In absence of any
evidence, the petitioner was also missed the chance of
cross examination. However, the inquiry officer relied
on the statement of the said passengers and
concluded inquiry proceedings. Learned advocate
Ms.Rathod submits that there was a charge of
misappropriation of fare against the present petitioner;
however, the checking officer has not calculated the
ST Cash and the Private Cash. In absence of the same,
the departmental proceedings cannot be said to be
have been concluded after following the due
Page 3 of 10
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Jan 20 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 20 21:19:48 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17279/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2025
undefined
procedure. However, the learned labour Court without
considering the same, confirmed the order passed in
the departmental proceedings.
4.2. Learned advocate Ms.Rathod submits that while
confirming the dismissal order, learned labour Court
has relied on previous five defaults; however, without
examining the said defaults, learned labour Court
comes to the conclusion that the petitioner is in habit
of misappropriating the funds of the corporation by not
issuing the tickets after collecting fare. Learned
advocate Ms.Rathod submits that without considering
the evidence in a proper spirit, the impugned award is
passed therefore, the same deserves to be set aside
and the petition is required to be allowed.
5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Naidu appearing for the
respondent submits that previously also such types of
incidents were occurred wherein the petitioner has
committed defaults and he was punished on occasions.
Learned advocate Mr.Naidu submits that on 31.10.2018
when the petitioner was on duty of conductor, five
passengers, who are travelling from Pandharpur to
Ahmednagar the petitioner did not issue the tickets
despite collecting the fare of Rs.240/- per passenger and
in all Rs.1200/-, the passengers, who are travelling from
Tembhurni to Ahmednagar, have paid Rs.180 per person,
and nine passengers were found not to have been issued
the tickets though collecting the fare of Rs.1620/-.
Page 4 of 10
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Jan 20 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 20 21:19:48 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17279/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2025
undefined
Learned advocate Mr.Naidu submits that in all
misappropriation of fund of the corporation of Rs.2820/-
was found to have been committed and therefore, the
departmental proceedings were initiated.
5.1. Learned advocate Mr.Naidu submits that it was not
the case that the bus was overcrowded; at the time of
checking, there were 29 passengers, out of which 14
passengers were found to have been travelling without
ticket. Learned advocate Mr.Naidu submits that after
issuance of the chargesheet, due opportunities were
provided during the departmental inquiry and
considering the evidence led by the petitioner, the
dismissal order came to be passed on 29.03.2019.
Learned advocate Mr.Naidu submits that as there was
no procedural laps therefore, learned labour Court has
rightly dismissed the Reference filed by the present
petitioner and confirmed the dismissal order passed by
the respondent-corporation. Learned advocate
Mr.Naidu submits that in presence of the present
petitioner, the statement of all passengers were
recorded, and the petitioner did not raise any dispute
with regard to non-calculation of the ST Cash and the
Private Cash before the checking squad.
5.2. Learned advocate Mr. Naidu submits that as there is
no error committed by the learned Labour Court while
dismissing the Reference, no interference is required,
and the petition is required to be dismissed.
Page 5 of 10
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Jan 20 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 20 21:19:48 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17279/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2025
undefined
6. Having considered the arguments made by the learned
advocates for the respective parties and perusing the
inquiry report, which is made part of the memo of the
petition, it emerges from the record that on 31.10.2018,
the bus was travelling from Pandharpur to Surat. When
the checking inspector entered into the bus, the
passengers, who are travelling in two groups, were found
to have not been issued the tickets. It is also not disputed
that from 14 passengers, an amount of Rs.2920/- was
collected towards the fare; however, no tickets were
issued by the present petitioner. The inquiry report
containing the statement of the present petitioner,
wherein he admitted the signature in the statements of
the passenger, which were recorded by the checking
officer in the presence of the present petitioner. The
petitioner has tried to raise the defence that as
destination of the passengers was far from the place of
checking and some disputes raised by the passengers
with regard to the ticket, discussions were going on.
Undisputedly, the distance from Pandharpur to the village
Miraj is around 50 to 60 kilometers, and from Tembhurni
to the village Miraj is around 20 kilometers. For the 50 to
60 kilometers, the petitioner did not issue tickets,
although the fare was collected. The petitioner has
admitted that half fare was collected; however, as per the
statements recorded by the passengers, the full fare was
paid, but tickets were not issued.
Page 6 of 10
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Jan 20 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 20 21:19:48 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17279/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2025
undefined
7. As per the admission made in the cross-examination,
previously also five defaults were recorded against the
present petitioner, out of which three defaults were
related to the non-issuance of tickets to the passengers.
It is further admitted by the present petitioner that he did
not state in the statement that the fare had not been
collected by him.
8. The decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation,
Bangalore vs.B.S.Hullikatti, reported in 2002 (2) SCC
574 wherein the Apex Court has held that the bus
conductor carry the passengers without ticket or issue
tickets at a less rate than the proper rate, the said acts
would inter alia amount to either beinga case of
dishonesty or of gross negligence and such conductors
were not fit to be retained in service because such
inaction or action on the part of the conductors results in
a financial loss to the road transport corporation, in such
types of cases order of dismissal should not be set aside.
9. So far as the contention of the petitioner regarding non-
examination of the passengers is concerned, as per the
decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State
Of Haryana And Anr. vs Rattan Singh, reported in
AIR (1997) SC 1512 it was held that in a domestic
inquiry, complete principle and procedure laid down in
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 do not apply. The only right of the
Page 7 of 10
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Jan 20 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 20 21:19:48 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17279/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2025
undefined
delinquent employee is that he must be informed as to
what are the charges against him and he must be given
an opportunity to defend himself on the said charges.
Merely passengers were not examined would not follow
the order recorded in the departmental proceedings
invalid.
10. In the case of Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh
vs Krishnan Behari And Ors, reported in (1996) 2
SCC 714 it is held by the Apex Court that the cases
involving corruption there cannot be any other
punishment than the dismissal. Any sympathy shown in
such cases is totally uncalled for the opposed to public
interest. The amount misappropriated may be small or
large; it is the act of misappropriation that is relevant.
11. In this background, this Court comes to the
conclusion that:
(A) inquiry is found to be legal and fare,
(B) the learned labour Court has also found that findings
of the inquiry officer just, correct and legal and they are
not perverse,(C) allegations against the petitioner are of
misappropriation of amount/ticket fare, the petitioner
received the amount towards ticket fare, but did not
issue the ticket to 14 passengers. Such charge of
misappropriation is of serious and grave in nature,Page 8 of 10
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Jan 20 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 20 21:19:48 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/17279/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2025
undefined
(D) past record of the petitioner reflects total five
defaults, out of which three defaults are in respect of
misconduct of similar nature,(E) statement of passengers recorded by the squad bring
out that passengers mentioned in their statement
asserted that they had paid fare,but tickets were not
issued,(F) beside other material and evidence, the petitioner has
also not disputed of receiving the amount of fare and not
issuing the tickets.
12. In view of the admissions made by the petitioner,
the contention regarding cash bag, which was not check
also does not sustain. The powers under Section 11A of
the I.D.Act were discussed by the Apex Court in the case
of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation
vs. Gajadhar Nath , reported in (2022) 3 SCC 190
wherein it is held that when a proper procedure has been
held by an employer, and the finding of misconduct is
plausible conclusion flowing from the evidence, adduced
at the said inquiry, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to sit
in judgment over the decision of the employer as an
appellate body. The interference with the decision of the
employer will be justified only when the findings arrived
at in the departmental inquiry are perverse or the
management is guilty of victimisation, unfair labour
practice or mala fide.
Page 9 of 10
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Jan 20 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 20 21:19:48 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17279/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2025
undefined
13. In view of the above discussion, this Court does not
find any substance in the arguments raised by the
learned advocate for the petitioner with regard to the
assailing the impugned judgment and award. In that view
of the matter, the petition being devoid of any merit and
deserves to be dismissed.
14. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed. The judgment
and award passed by the learned labour Court, Godhra
dated 08.08.2022 in Reference (T) No.06 of 2021 is
hereby confirmed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
M.M.MIRZA
Page 10 of 10
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Jan 20 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 20 21:19:48 IST 2025
[ad_1]
Source link