Bombay High Court Upholds Dismissal of MSRTC Conductor: Rules on Domestic Enquiry, Confirms Sufficiency of Evidence for Ticketless Passenger and Excess Cash, and Validates Role of Disciplinary Authority Under Service Rules

Court’s Decision:

The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the ex-conductor challenging his dismissal from MSRTC. The Court upheld the findings of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court, which had earlier ruled that the petitioner’s dismissal for misconduct was fair and based on evidence. The Court emphasized that strict evidentiary rules do not apply in domestic enquiries and held, “Sufficiency of evidence in proof of the finding by a domestic tribunal is beyond scrutiny.”

Facts:

1. The petitioner joined MSRTC in 1989 and became a confirmed employee in 1995. On July 14, 1996, he was assigned as a conductor on a bus operating from Sangli to Jat.
2. During a surprise inspection at Kavathe Mahankal bus station, a passenger was found without a ticket, although he claimed to have paid the petitioner ₹50 for the ticket. Additionally, the petitioner was found with ₹30.25 in excess cash.
3. The disciplinary authority conducted an enquiry and found the petitioner guilty of:
   • Collecting fare from the passenger but failing to issue a ticket.
   • Holding excess cash, indicating potential misappropriation.
4. The petitioner was dismissed from service on March 10, 1998.
5. The Labour Court upheld the dismissal, rejecting the petitioner’s claims of procedural unfairness. This decision was further confirmed by the Industrial Court.

Issues:

1. Was the dismissal order valid and proportionate to the charges?
2. Was the domestic enquiry conducted in compliance with principles of natural justice?
3. Did the findings of the Labour Court and Industrial Court suffer from any perversity or errors warranting judicial interference?

Petitioner’s Arguments:

1. Flaws in Evidence:
   • The petitioner contended that the passenger, whose testimony was crucial to proving the charges, was not examined during the enquiry.
   • He argued that the passenger later testified before the Labour Court that the ticket was issued, disproving the allegation of misconduct.
2. Natural Justice Violations:
   • The petitioner claimed the enquiry was flawed because the same authority that issued the chargesheet also acted as the disciplinary authority, which he argued violated the principles of natural justice.
3. Waybill Discrepancies:
   • The petitioner pointed to entries in the waybill, claiming they disproved the allegations of excess cash and failure to issue a ticket.
4. Past Misconduct Irrelevant:
   • He argued that the reference to past misconduct by MSRTC was irrelevant and prejudicial.

Respondent’s Arguments:

1. Fairness of Enquiry:
   • MSRTC maintained that the domestic enquiry followed all procedural rules, and the evidence gathered was sufficient to establish the charges.
   • The testimony of the checking squad member who conducted the inspection provided credible evidence.
2. Passenger’s Inconsistencies:
   • The respondent highlighted that the passenger provided inconsistent statements at different stages, which weakened his subsequent defense of the petitioner.
3. Prior Misconduct:
   • The respondent noted that the petitioner had been penalized eight times previously for misconduct, which justified the decision to dismiss him for this repeated lapse.

Analysis of the Law:

The Court analyzed key legal principles governing domestic enquiries:

1. Evidence Rules in Domestic Enquiries:
   • The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh (1977), which held that strict rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act do not apply to domestic enquiries.
   • It clarified that hearsay evidence can be relied upon if it has reasonable probative value and nexus to the facts of the case.
2. Role of the Disciplinary Authority:
   • The petitioner argued that the disciplinary authority violated natural justice by performing multiple roles (e.g., issuing the chargesheet, conducting the enquiry, and deciding the punishment). However, the Court observed that Rule 18 of the MSRTC’s Discipline and Appeal Rules explicitly allows the appointing authority to conduct enquiries and impose punishment.
3. Evaluation of Evidence:
   • The Court rejected the petitioner’s claim that the waybill entries disproved the charges, noting that both the Labour and Industrial Courts had already examined this evidence and found the charges substantiated.

Precedent Analysis:

The Court referred to the following precedents:

1. State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh (1977):
   • The Supreme Court upheld the termination of a bus conductor despite the absence of passenger testimony, emphasizing that domestic enquiries require “some evidence” with logical probative value.
   • This precedent was applied to dismiss the petitioner’s argument about the absence of the passenger’s testimony during the enquiry.
2. MSRTC v. Rajendra Mohanlal Chhangani (2019):
   • This case established that an enquiry conducted by the same disciplinary authority may be improper if the rules prohibit such a procedure. However, the Court distinguished this case, noting that Rule 18 explicitly permitted the procedure followed by MSRTC.

Court’s Reasoning:

1. Sufficiency of Evidence:
   • The Court emphasized that the testimony of the checking squad member, combined with the statement recorded from the passenger on the day of the inspection, constituted sufficient evidence to uphold the charges.
   • The Court noted that the passenger’s inconsistent statements at different stages undermined the petitioner’s defense.
2. Natural Justice:
   • The Court held that the enquiry complied with principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and present his defense.
3. Role of the Disciplinary Authority:
   • The Court found no illegality in the disciplinary authority performing multiple roles, as this was explicitly permitted under MSRTC’s rules.
4. Waybill Entries:
   • The Court declined to re-examine the waybill entries, stating that the Labour and Industrial Courts had already assessed this evidence, and no apparent error was found.

Conclusion:

The Court concluded that the petitioner’s dismissal was justified and proportionate to the charges. It observed that the petitioner’s past record of eight misconducts further reinforced the appropriateness of the penalty. The Court dismissed the writ petition, stating, “This Court is not expected to reappreciate evidence in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.”

Implications:

1. Validation of Domestic Enquiries:
   • The judgment reaffirms that domestic enquiries are not bound by strict evidentiary rules, provided they adhere to basic principles of fairness and natural justice.
2. Disciplinary Authority’s Role:
   • The decision clarifies that the disciplinary authority can perform multiple roles if permitted by the governing service rules.
3. Employee Conduct and Past Records:
   • The Court’s emphasis on the petitioner’s prior record highlights the importance of an employee’s service history in determining the proportionality of penalties.

Also Read – Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against Manufacturer Over Sale of Nitrous Oxide Without Wholesale License – “No Violation When Both Parties Hold Manufacturing Licenses”