TMI Blog1996 (2) TMI 563X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ciplinary proceedings were initiated againsr him on charges of misconduct and after conducting an inquiry wherein the charges were found proved, the petitioner was removed from service by order dated 17-4-1985. The said removal from service of the petitioner gave rise to an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Gorakhpur. Before the Labour Court, it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the domestic inquiry was not fair and proper. The said plea of the petitioner was accepted by the Labour Court and the Corporation was permitted to adduce evidence to prove the charges. The Corporation adduced evidence, documentary as well as oral, in support of the charges before the Labour Court and the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad boarded the bus at Basti, ₹ 5.35 per head, the prescribed fare for travelling from Basti to Gorakhpur but in the. waybill he had entered as having received the sum of ₹ 2.35 from each of them. Subsequently the said figure would have been altered from ₹ 2.35 to ₹ 2.85, which was the fare from Khalilabad to Gorakhpur and the petitioner would have retained the balance amount of ₹ 2.50 per passenger. On earlier occasions also the petitioner had adopted the same modus operandi and in the previous waybills prepared by the petitioner there was overwriting and the figure '3' had been changed to '8' and the fare amount of ₹ 2.35 had been altered to ₹ 2.85. In order to prove the charge the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to the decisions of this Court in Bhagat Ram v. State of H. P' and Guizar Sitigh V. State of Punjab2 and has submitted that in the facts of this case the High Court was right in taking the view that the penalty of termination of services was disproportionate to the misconduct found established. We are unable to agree. The facts in the cases aforementioned were very different and they can have no application to the present case. Having regard to the misconduct that has been found established against the petitioner, it is not possible to say that the Corporation, in removing the petitioner from service, has imposed a punishment which is disproportionate to the misconduct. We are, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
