JUDGMENT
Misra, J.
(1). The petitioned workman who was working as a conductor in the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation was removed from service on the charge that he had carried passengers without issuing tickets to them. A reference was
initiated in regard to removal of the petitioner from service of the RSRTC. A preliminary objection was taken by the petitioner-workman before the Tribunal against the RSRTC, that no inquiry was held regarding the charge of misconduct by the RSRTC and hence his removal from service was clearly illegal. The Tribunal thereafter passed an Interim order on 3.3.92 as contained in annexure-3 permitting the respondent-RSRTC to lead evidence against the petitioner workman before the Tribunal. The contesting parties thereafter lead evidence in support of their respective cases.
(2). The respondent-Management had come out with a specific plea that the petitioner although was found carrying passengers without ticket and was caught red handed on the bus he also refused to sign on the document of the checking staff and thereafter also indulged in assaulting the members of the checking party.
(3). The petitioner-workman although has a counter version to the case of the RSRTC, he had not raised this plea in his statement of claim and in course of evidence he came out for the first time with the plea that it is checking-staff which had demanded illegal gratification from him and since he failed to comply with their illegal demand, they levelled false allegations against the petitioner. This part of the petitioner’s plea has been fully discussed by the Industrial Tribunal at para No.5 of the impugned award of the Tribunal wherein the Tribunal has categorically recorded that the petitioner did not lead any oral evidence or cross examine the witnesses in order to establish his plea. If the petitioner in fact had a genuine reason to level allegation against the checking party, he could have approached the higher authorities in this regard and even if he had missed to do so, he could have at least taken this plea in his statement of claim in order to inspire confidence that this plea is not an after thought. But the petitioner first of all took this plea only at the stage of leading evidence but even thereafter failed to cross examine the witnesses so as to controvert the allegations levelled against him.
(4). The finding of the fact recorded against the petitioner regarding his misconduct therefore, does not suffer from any perversity so as to give a cause for this Court to interfere with it.
(5). The writ petition under the circumstances stands dismissed at the admission stage itself.