Non-examination of passengers does not vitiate a disciplinary enquiry supported by probative checking-staff evidence.

The petitioner, a conductor appointed by the Delhi Transport Corporation (“DTC”) on 10 July 1985, was charge-sheeted for allegedly collecting ₹6 from six passengers on 14 May 1991 without issuing tickets and for instigating the passengers against the checking staff.

A domestic enquiry was conducted, culminating in his removal from service on 2 December 1991.

In proceedings under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the validity of the enquiry was upheld and approval of the removal was granted on 2 December 1999.

The petitioner thereafter raised an industrial dispute, but the Industrial Tribunal dismissed his claim and upheld the punishment in its award dated 28 July 2005.

Before the High Court, he challenged the enquiry on grounds including denial of co-worker assistance, non-supply of documents, non-examination of passenger witnesses, discrepancies in ticket numbers, and disproportionate punishment.

1. Whether the domestic enquiry was vitiated by breach of the principles of natural justice because the petitioner was allegedly denied co-worker assistance, relevant documents, and examination or cross-examination of passenger witnesses.

2. Whether the findings of misconduct were unsupported by evidence or liable to be interfered with on account of the alleged discrepancy in ticket numbers.

3. Whether removal from service was so disproportionate to the misconduct, particularly in light of the petitioner’s past service record and the alleged financial loss of ₹6, as to warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

4. Whether the Industrial Tribunal’s award declining relief warranted interference in the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction.

The Court applied Sections 33(2)(b) and 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, holding that approval under Section 33(2)(b) does not replace the substantive adjudication of an industrial dispute or eliminate the Tribunal’s jurisdiction under Section 11A, although the earlier approval proceedings remain relevant.

Under Article 226, judicial review is supervisory and not appellate; the Court does not reappreciate evidence or substitute its own view merely because another view is possible.

In State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh, (1977) 2 SCC 491, the Supreme Court held that strict rules of evidence do not apply to domestic enquiries, hearsay evidence may be relied upon if it has reasonable nexus and credibility, and non-examination of passengers does not automatically invalidate the enquiry where there is some relevant evidence.

Departmental instructions are generally rules of prudence and their non-compliance does not, by itself, vitiate disciplinary proceedings.

Punishment may be interfered with only where it is so disproportionate that it shocks the conscience of the Court; misconduct involving a conductor’s failure to issue tickets implicates financial integrity and may justify severe punishment.

The Court found that the petitioner participated in the enquiry, was informed of the charges, was afforded an opportunity to defend himself, and had himself declined assistance from a co-worker.

The record contained the checking staff’s evidence, the statements recorded at the back of the challan, the petitioner’s signature, and the surrender of six unpunched tickets, providing a sufficient evidentiary basis for the finding of misconduct.

Applying Rattan Singh, the Court held that the absence of passenger testimony was not fatal, particularly because the statements of the passengers’ group leader had been recorded and the checking staff’s evidence constituted relevant evidence.

The alleged non-supply of documents was not shown to have caused prejudice, while the ticket-number discrepancy concerned appreciation of evidence and did not justify reappraisal under Article 226.

Although the past service record could be relevant to punishment, the petitioner failed to show that its alleged non-consideration made the removal shockingly disproportionate; the misconduct was directly related to his duties and financial integrity as a conductor.

The earlier findings upholding the enquiry and approving the removal, together with the passage of time since 1991, further militated against interference.

The Industrial Tribunal’s award did not warrant interference in writ jurisdiction.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, and all pending applications, if any, were disposed of.