A disciplinary finding may rest on inspection reports and admissions despite non-examination of witnesses.

Rohtash Singh, employed as a conductor with the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC), was found on 20 December 1988 operating a bus on the Delhi–Faridabad route when four passengers allegedly alighted without tickets after paying ₹16 in aggregate to him. An excess cash amount of approximately ₹29.60/₹29.65 was also allegedly found in his possession.

Following a departmental enquiry, the charges were held proved and Singh was removed from service with effect from 5 May 1989. DTC’s application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was allowed after the enquiry was found to comply with natural justice.

In the subsequent industrial dispute, however, the Labour Court held that the enquiry was unfair and that the charge of non-issuance of tickets was not proved, principally because the passengers and Shri Khem Chand, who had recorded their statements and checked the cash, were not examined before it. It directed reinstatement with 25% back wages.

During the writ proceedings, Singh was taken back into service pursuant to DTC’s statement and received payments under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Whether the Labour Court erred in holding that the departmental enquiry was unfair and improper merely because DTC did not lead fresh evidence before it to establish the validity of the enquiry

Whether the Labour Court was justified in holding that the misconduct was not proved because Shri Khem Chand and the passengers were not examined before it

Whether the findings and relief granted in the impugned award warranted interference in writ jurisdiction

Whether amounts paid to the workman under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act were recoverable after the impugned award was set aside

In a disciplinary enquiry, misconduct is established on the standard of preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt; strict rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act do not apply, and logically probative material, including credible hearsay, may be considered, provided the enquiry observes fairness and natural justice.

Relying on State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh, (1977) 2 SCC 491, the Court held that the relevant question is whether there was “some evidence” supporting the finding, rather than whether the evidence satisfies the technical standards applicable to criminal trials.

Non-examination of passengers does not, by itself, vitiate a departmental enquiry, and a reviewing court cannot reappreciate evidence as an appellate authority.

Payments under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, being in the nature of subsistence payments to an unemployed workman during litigation, are not recoverable merely because the employer ultimately succeeds.

The Court found that the Labour Court adopted an erroneous evidentiary standard by treating the non-examination of Shri Khem Chand and the passengers as fatal to DTC’s case.

The enquiry record contained the inspection report, the passengers’ statements recorded on the challan and countersigned by Singh, Singh’s admission regarding the excess cash, and the testimony of Shri Niwas, a member of the checking team, who stated that four passengers were found ticketless after claiming to have paid the fare.

Singh had received the relevant documents, had an opportunity to reply, participated in the enquiry, and was given the opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses; the record also showed that he declined to cross-examine Shri Khem Chand.

Applying the preponderance-of-probabilities standard and the “some evidence” test in Rattan Singh, the Court held that the Enquiry Officer could reasonably conclude that the charges were proved. The Labour Court therefore exceeded the permissible limits of judicial scrutiny by reappreciating the evidence and substituting its own conclusions.

The Court nevertheless held that payments already made under Section 17B were not recoverable.

Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed, the impugned award directing reinstatement with 25% back wages was set aside, and no recovery was directed in respect of amounts already paid to Singh under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act.