TMI Blog2004 (9) TMI 668X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vice and other consequential benefits. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the case are as follows:- The respondent was working as a conductor in the Chikodi depot of the appellant-corporation. On 31st May 1999 when the bus in which he was on duty returned back to the depot after its trip from Haragiri to Chikodi on a surprise check he was found be in possession of unaccounted money of ₹ 93/- over and above the amount equivalent to the tickets issued by him. Under Regulation applicable to the respondent, the respondent was not to carry more than ₹ 5/- as his personal money while on duty so as to obviate the defence of the delinquent conductors that the excess money was their personal money. Basing on these facts the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd continuity of service and other consequential benefits. As stated above, aggrieved corporation preferred a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka. The learned single Judge who heard the writ petition agreed with the Labour Court that since the corporation failed to examine the passengers from whom the said excess amount was collected, the charge of non-issuance of tickets or issuance of tickets of lesser denomination could not be upheld. The learned single Judge also agreed with the Labour Court that the punishment awarded was also excessive however it thought fit to reduce the back wages to 75% as compared to the full back wages awarded by the Labour Court. On appeal filed against the said judgment before the Division Bench of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of increment etc. Learned counsel also submitted that the view of the Labour Court and the learned single Judge that the misconduct alleged against the respondent could only be established by the examination of passengers is impracticable because as in the present cse and quite often the misconduct comes into light only when the vehicle comes back to the depot after dropping the passengers and at the time of depositing the collection for the day if surprise check is made at that time and such misconduct is detected and it is next to impossible for the corporation to trace the passengers and bring them before the inquiry officer to establish their case that is why the corporation has from its regulation made it mandatory that the conductor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the order of dismissal should have been set aside. In our opinion, the facts of the above case and the law laid down therein applies to the facts of the present case also. The fact the respondent was carrying ₹ 93/- in excess of the amount is a fact proved. This itself is a misconduct over and above that the courts below ought not to have insisted on examination of the passengers. Since the respondent did not have any explanation for having carried the said excess amount, this omission also is was sufficient to hold the respondent guilty. This Court in the case of State of Haryana Anr. vs. Rattan Singh { (1977) 2 SCC 491 which is also a case arising out of non-issuance of ticket by a conductor held thus:- In a domest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invalid. In fact, the inspector tried to get their statements but the passengers declined. Further, it was not for the court but the tribunal to assess the evidence of the conductor. From the above it is clear once a domestic tribunal based on evidence comes to a particular conclusion normally it is not open to the appellate tribunals and courts to substitute their subjective opinion in the place of the one arrived at by the domestic tribunal. In the present case, there is evidence of the inspector who checked the bus which establishes the misconduct of the respondent. The domestic tribunal accepted that evidence and found the respondent guilty. But the courts below misdirected themselves in insisting on the evidence of the ticketless p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... precedent. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the courts below have erred in interfering with the finding of fact on an erroneous basis. Coming to the question of quantum of punishment, one should bear in mind the fact that it is not the amount of money misappropriated that becomes a primary factor for awarding punishment, on the contrary, it is the loss of confidence which is the primary factor to be taken into consideration. In our opinion, when a person is found guilty of misappropriating corporation's fund, there is nothing wrong in the corporation losing confidence or faith in such a person and awarding a punishment of dismissal. This Court in the case of B.S. Hullikatti (supra) held in a similar circumstances that the act wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
