JUDGMENT
1. The appellant workman was appointed as a conductor in the respondent-establishment Appellant was conducting the bus from Sangli to Bagalkot on 29.10.1997, which was checked and on inspection, it was found that he had not issued 8 tickets to the passengers, of Rs. 4/- denomination each. The inspection team found that the appellant had not acted in accordance with the Principle ‘issue and start’. The matter was reported to the employer. Taking into consideration, the report of the inspecting team, a charge sheet dated 11.12.1997 was issued to the appellant, alleging misconduct by the appellant in the matter of discharge of his duty and failing to act in accordance with the service regulations of the respondent-Corporation. The appellant has submitted his statement of objections to the charge sheet on 22.3.1998. A disciplinary enquiry has been conducted in accordance with the regulations of the respondent-Corporation and based on the report of the enquiring officer that, the charges levelled against the petitioner, which was the subject matter of the disciplinary enquiry, is proved, the appellant was dismissed from service, by the order dated 14.2.2000,
2. The appellant questioned the order of dismissal by filing an application under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, in the Labour Court at Bijapur. The application was resisted by the respondent Based on the pleadings, the Labour Court has raised the following issues for determination:
1. Whether the D.E. Held against the claimant is fair and proper?
2. Whether the respondent is Justified in dismissing the services of the claimant by order dt. 14-2-2000?
3. If not, to what reliefs the claimant is entitled to?
3. On behalf of the management, a retired Traffic Inspector was examined as MW-1 and Exhibits M-1 to M-8 were marked. The appellant examined himself as WW-1. On consideration of the record, the Labour Court, by its award dated 31.1.2004, has passed the award, rejecting the application filed by the appellant.
4. The appellant questioned the order of dismissal, as affirmed by the Labour Court in the said award, by filing the writ petition. Learned single Judge on consideration of the record, also taking into consideration, the admission of the appellant that, he was involved in 20 similar cases earlier, did not find any justification to interfere with the impugned award passed by the Labour Court and the writ petition was dismissed, Therefore, this writ appeal has been filed assailing the said orders.
5. Sri. P.N. Nanja Reddy, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant would submit that, the explanation offered by the appellant that 8 passengers suddenly got into the bus at a request stop and at the same time, the checking staff also came inside the bus and thus there was no time for the appellant to issue tickets to 8 passengers, which circumstance, having been pleaded, was not appreciated by the management, Labour Court and the learned single Judge requires consideration. The second contention of the learned Advocate is that, the appellant was not afforded with sufficient opportunity to contest the disciplinary enquiry, the order of dismissal has been passed hurriedly and there is denial of reasonable opportunity of hearing and violation of principles of natural justice, has not been taken note of by the Labour Court and the learned single Judge.
6. Having heard the learned Advocate and having examined the order passed by the Management, award made by the Labour Court and the order passed by the learned single Judge, the points that arise for our consideration are;
(i) Whether the disciplinary enquiry has been conducted by granting reasonable opportunity of hearing and by fallowing the principles of natural justice by the respondent-management?
(ii) Whether the respondent was justified in dismissing the appellant from service?
Re: Point (1):
7. It is not in dispute that the appellant was issued with the charge sheet dated 11.12.1997 alleging that he had not issued tickets to 8 passengers, while conducting the bus from Sangli to Bagalkot on 29.10.1997. The Charge sheet contained the full particulars relating to the alleged acts of misconduct, omissions and commissions, in discharge of duty, on the part of the appellant, The charge was denied by the appellant. Thereafter, the disciplinary enquiry was conducted in which the management has placed the evidence, in support of the charges levelled by it, against the appellant. Based on the evidence, placed on record of the enquiry, the enquiry Officer having arrived at the conclusion that, the charges levelled against the appellant was proved, has submitted the report, on the basis of which, the management has dismissed the appellant from service, by its order dated 14.2.2000. The Labour Court had framed the preliminary issue viz., whether the disciplinary enquiry held against the appellant is fair and proper?
8. On detailed consideration, by an order dated 11.10.2002, it was held by the Labour Court that the disciplinary enquiry held against the appellant is lair and appropriate. In view of the finding of fact, recorded by the Labour Court, on appreciation of evidence, we do not find any merit in the contention that the disciplinary enquiry was not conducted by granting reasonable opportunity of hearing and that there is violation of principles of natural justice.
Re: Point (ii):
9. The disciplinary enquiry was held against the appellant, in which it was established that the appellant has committed the misconduct alleged against him in the charge sheet Based on the enquiry report, the management has dismissed the appellant from service. In the challenge put forth by the appellant, the Labour Court on appreciation of the evidence of MW-1 and WW-1, has arrived at the conclusion that, on account of the misconduct on the part of the appellant, loss was caused to the Corporation. The Labour Court also took into consideration the fact that, the appellant himself has admitted that he was involved in 15 to 20 cases of similar nature earlier and that he was imposed with minor punishments. The Labour Court taking into consideration, the previous history as well as the misconduct proved in the case, has held that the respondent is justified in imposing the penalty of dismissal. Learned single Judge also considered the issue and has held that, in case of pilferage or loss caused to the corporation, the employee loses the confidence of the Corporation and there cannot be any sympathy or (generosity being shown to the employee and thus did not find any justification to Interfere with the award made by the Labour Court
10. There is no dispute that, the appellant was involved in similar acts of misconduct earlier in about 15 to 20 cases. The respondent-Management had imposed minor punishments on the appellant, in order to provide opportunity to the appellant to reform himself and not to repeat, the acts of misconduct. It is a case of ‘habits dying hard’. The appellant did not give up his old habits but continued to repeat and in view of his continued acts of causing pilferage or loss of revenue to the Corporation, the order of dismissal has been passed, terminating his service. Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that, punishment of removal/dismissal is the appropriate punishment, for an employee found guilty of misappropriation of funds or causing loss to the employer and the Court should be reluctant to reduce the punishment by way of misplaced sympathy for a workman. It has been held that, there is nothing wrong in the employer losing confidence or faith in such an employee and awarding punishment of dismissal holding that there is no place for generosity or misplaced sympathy on the part of the judicial forums and no interference with the quantum of punishment being called for in such cases.
11. In the case of Divisional Controller, NEKRTC v. H. Amaresh , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
In the instant case, the misappropriation of the funds by the delinquent employee was only Rs. 360.95. Tills Court has considered the punishment that may be awarded to the delinquent employees who mis-appropriated the funds of the Corporation and the factors to he considered. This Court in a catena of Judgments held that the loss of confidence is the primary footer and not the amount of money mil-appropriated and that the sympathy or generosity cannot be a factor which is impermissible in law. When an employee is found guilty of pilferage or of mis-appropriating the Corporation’s funds, there is nothing wrong in the Corporation losing confidence or faith in such an employee and awarding punishment of dismissal. In such cases, there is no place for generosity or misplaced sympathy on the part of the judicial forums and interfering therefore with the quantum of punishment. The judgment in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. B.S. Hullikatti was also relied on in this judgment among others. Examination of the passengers of the vehicle from whom the sold sum was collected was also not essential. In our view, possession of the said excess sum of money on the part of the respondent, a fact proved, is itself a misconduct and hence the Labour court and the learned Judges of the High Court misdirected themselves in insisting on the evidence of the passengers which is wholly not essential. This apart, the respondent did not hove any explanation for having carried the said excess amount This omission was sufficient to hold him guilty. This act was so grossly negligent that the respondent was not fit to he retained as a conductor because such action or inaction of his was bound to result in financial loss to the appellant irrespective of the quantum.
(Bold is ours For Emphasis)
12. In view of the admission of the appellant himself that, earlier he was involved in similar acts of misconduct for 15 to 20 times, wherein he was imposed with minor penalties and since he had continued to commit the act of misconduct of causing loss to the employer/Corporation, in our view, the appellant does not deserve any sympathy. If the Courts were to interfere in cases of this type, it will be showing misplaced sympathy or private benevolence, which will be against the law repeatedly laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the catena of decisions.
13. Hence we hold that the respondent was justified in dismissing the appellant from service, taking into account the gravity of the proved misconduct of causing loss of revenue to the Corporation.
14. No other point was urged for consideration.
In the result we do not find any ground to entertain this appeal. The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly rejected.