Absence of cash verification and non-supply of relevant documents during enquiry vitiates findings of misconduct.

The Respondent, a Conductor with the Appellant (DTC), was charged with misconduct on 24.04.1992 for allegedly collecting fares from ten passengers without issuing tickets during a vigilance check

Following an enquiry report dated 29.10.1993, the Respondent was dismissed from service on 19.10.1994

The Labour Court, vide award dated 03.05.2010, set aside the dismissal and ordered reinstatement with continuity of service but without back wages, citing procedural lapses and lack of evidence

A Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the DTC's writ petition against this award on 14.05.2024

1. Whether the enquiry proceedings were conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice due to non-supply of material documents and denial of a defense assistant?

2. Whether the charge of misconduct was established by cogent evidence in the absence of a cash verification and consistent passenger statements?

The Court primarily applied the principles of industrial jurisprudence and natural justice, emphasizing that a workman must be made aware of accusations and provided a genuine opportunity to defend

It relied on Syndicate Bank v. General Secretary, Syndicate Bank Staff Association, which mandates that management must act in good faith and fairness

Further, it applied Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra regarding the scope of judicial interference in perverse disciplinary actions

It also followed the specific precedent in DTC v. Shyam Singh, holding that the absence of a "cash check" of the conductor's collection at the time of inspection weakens the charge of misappropriation

The Court observed that the enquiry was fundamentally flawed as the DTC failed to supply the Log Book, Driver Memo, and Passenger Statements to the Respondent, offering only a "token" inspection instead of copies

Crucially, the DTC relied on the Respondent’s past record for punishment without disclosing it in the chargesheet or granting him an opportunity to rebut it, which constitutes a "settled infraction" of natural justice

On merits, the Court found the passenger statements inconsistent and incomplete—failing to mention destinations or fares paid

The Court emphasized that since the Vigilance Squad failed to conduct a physical cash verification to match the alleged unpaid fares, the charge of 'misconduct' remained unproven by the requisite legal standard

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Single Judge’s order and the Labour Court’s Award. The Respondent is to be reinstated with continuity of service for seniority, pension, and gratuity, but is denied back wages due to his unsatisfactory past service record. Directives for reinstatement must be implemented as per the original Award timelines