Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 841 (DEL)

DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. GIAN CHAND

2008-09-03

S.N.AGGARWAL

body2008
S.N. Aggarwal, J. 1. Delhi Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner) has filed this writ petition seeking to challenge the impugned awards/orders dated 8.11.2004 and 4.7.2005 of the Labour Court, Delhi holding the findings of the Inquiry Officer to be perverse and declining opportunity to the Management to lead evidence to prove the misconduct of the respondent/workman before the Labour Court. The Labour Court vide its impugned award has directed reinstatement of the respondent/workman in service with 60% back wages, continuity of service and all other legal benefits. 2. The factual matrix of the case giving rise to the present challenge is as follows : 3. The respondent was employed by the petitioner as a conductor. On 23rd January, 1992 the respondent was performing his duty on Bus No. 9115 on route Sahibabad-Delhi. Shri R.C. Dahiya, Ticket Inspector and other members of the checking staff of the petitioner checked the bus at about 1035 hours at Nand Nagri Depot. It was found that a group of 11 passengers was travelling in the bus without tickets. The passengers had boarded into the bus at Rajender Nagar (Sahibabad) for going to Delhi and that the respondent as conductor of the bus had collected due fare of Rs. 38.50 from the passengers but did not issue them tickets. The respondent admitted his fault and surrendered 11 unpunched tickets bearing Nos. 000-89379 to 000-89389 to the checking staff. The cash of the respondent was checked and it was found short by Rs. 15.25 after deducting the amount of Rs. 38.50 of the unpunched tickets. The respondent being the conductor of the bus was challaned by the checking staff and on the back of the challan, the statements of the passengers found travelling without tickets were also recorded. The petitioner found the respondent/workman guilty of misconduct within the meaning of para 19(b),(h) and (m) of the Standing Orders governing the conduct of the DTC employees. The respondent/ workman was placed under suspension w.e.f. 29.01.1992 vide Memo No. WPD-3/I(T)/Surp./92/412 dated 29.01.1992. The petitioner found the respondent/workman guilty of misconduct within the meaning of para 19(b),(h) and (m) of the Standing Orders governing the conduct of the DTC employees. The respondent/ workman was placed under suspension w.e.f. 29.01.1992 vide Memo No. WPD-3/I(T)/Surp./92/412 dated 29.01.1992. Thereafter the respondent was served with a charge sheet dated 06.02.1992 calling upon him to explain as to why disciplinary action under clause 15(2) of the DRTA (Conditions of appointment and service) Regulations, 1952 read with Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 and Delhi Road Transport Laws (Amendment) Act, 1971 be not taken against him for the following irregularities :- That on 23.01.1992 while you were performing your duty with bus No. 9115 on route Sahibabad-Delhi, at about 1035 hrs, your bus was checked by checking officials at Nand Nagri Depot and found that a group of 11 passengers were traveling without tickets who boarded the bus from Rajinder Nager (Sahibabad) to Delhi from whom you had already collected the bus fare of Rs.38.50 and did not issue any ticket to them. You admitted your fault and surrendered 11 unpunched tickets bearing Nos. 00089379 to 000-89389. Your cash was also checked and found R.15.20 in short after deducting the amount of Rs.38.50 of above unpunched tickets. This shows your dishonesty in dealing with the business of the corporation. 4. The respondent vide aforementioned chargesheet was informed that his above mentioned action tantamounts to misconduct within the meaning of para 19(b),(h) and (m) of the Standing Orders governing the conduct of the DTC employees. The charge sheet dated 06.02.1992 served upon the respondent is Annexure P-7 at page 43 of the Paper Book. The respondent gave reply to the charge sheet and denied the alleged charges. Since the petitioner was not satisfied with the reply of the respondent, a departmental inquiry into the charges was held against him and during the said inquiry, the statements of Managements witnesses, namely, of Shri Ram Chander Dahiya, Traffic Inspector and Shri Balbir Singh, ATI were recorded by the Inquiry Officer on 07.04.1992. The Managements witness, Shri Ram Chander Dahiya, T.I. was cross-examined by the respondent/ workman and he did not cross-examine the Managements other witness, Shri Balbir Singh, ATI, despite opportunity for cross examination given to him. The Managements witness, Shri Ram Chander Dahiya, T.I. was cross-examined by the respondent/ workman and he did not cross-examine the Managements other witness, Shri Balbir Singh, ATI, despite opportunity for cross examination given to him. Three more witnesses of the Management, namely, Shri Samunder Singh, ATI, Shri Ishwar Singh, ATI and Shri Sant Lal, ATI were present for their evidence before the Inquiry Officer but the respondent made a statement that he did not want to ask any question from them and for that reason, their statements were not recorded. The respondent, besides examining himself, had examined passenger Shri Ratan Lal in his defence. The Inquiry Officer on the basis of material placed before her including the evidence adduced during the inquiry held the respondent guilty of misconduct for which he was charge-sheeted and the Inquiry Officer accordingly submitted her report to the disciplinary authority of the respondent on 20.04.1992. The report of the Inquiry Officer is Annexure P-9 at page 61 of the paper book. The report of the Inquiry Officer was given to the respondent vide memo dated 29.04.1992 (Annexure P-10 at page 67 of the Paper Book) and he was called upon to show cause within ten days as to why penalty of removal from service be not imposed upon him in view of the findings of the Inquiry Officer contained in the report. The respondent did not give any reply to the said memo and, therefore, the disciplinary authority of the respondent after considering the entire material placed before it including the report of the Inquiry Officer decided to remove the respondent from service with immediate effect under clause 15(2)(vi) of the DRTA (Conditions of appointment and service) Regulations, 1952. The respondent was accordingly served with the office order dated 26.05.1992 (Annexure P-11 at Page 71 of the paper book) informing him about his removal from service with immediate effect. One month notice salary amounting to Rs. 2022/- was remitted to the respondent through money order at his residential address. Thus, the respondent stood removed from service of the petitioner w.e.f. 26.05.1992. 5. One month notice salary amounting to Rs. 2022/- was remitted to the respondent through money order at his residential address. Thus, the respondent stood removed from service of the petitioner w.e.f. 26.05.1992. 5. Because an industrial dispute concerning DTC workers demand for implementation of IVth Pay Commissions report was pending adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal at the time of removal of the respondent from service, the petitioner filed an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for approval of the Industrial Tribunal of its decision taken for the removal of the respondent from service. The Industrial Tribunal vide its order passed on 16.04.2001 in OP No. 203/92 granted approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act for removal of the respondent from service. Thereafter, the respondent raised an industrial dispute regarding his termination from the service of the petitioner and the dispute so raised by him was referred by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi for adjudication by the Labour Court vide Reference No. F.24(3925)/93-Lab./12285-90 dated 30.03.1994. The terms of Reference was as follows :- Whether removal of Shri Gian Chand from service is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Labour Court framed the following issues on 07.09.1998 :- 1. Whether the enquiry got conducted by the Management against the Workman was proper and valid 2. To what relief, if any, is the Workman entitled from the Management in terms of reference 7. The complete record of inquiry proceedings was filed by the Management before the Labour Court and besides that the Labour Court has also recorded the statement of respondent/workman as WW-1 and the statement of the Inquiry Officer Smt. Anu Kumar as MW-1. 8. In order to answer the reference made by the GNCT of Delhi for adjudication, the Labour Court has passed two orders, one on 08.11.2004 and the second on 04.07.2005. The first order passed on 08.11.2004 relates to the inquiry issue and the second order passed on 04.07.2005 relates to declining an opportunity to the Management for leading evidence before the Labour Court to prove misconduct of the respondent/workman. The petitioner being the Management has assailed both these orders of the Labour Court in the present writ petition. 9. Ms. The first order passed on 08.11.2004 relates to the inquiry issue and the second order passed on 04.07.2005 relates to declining an opportunity to the Management for leading evidence before the Labour Court to prove misconduct of the respondent/workman. The petitioner being the Management has assailed both these orders of the Labour Court in the present writ petition. 9. Ms. Mini Pushkarna, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/Management has contended that the conclusion of the Labour Court that finding of the Inquiry Officer is vitiated by perversity is contrary to evidence on record. The learned counsel has argued that the Labour Court cannot go into the sufficiency of evidence adduced before the Inquiry Officer. She has placed reliance on judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Anr. Versus Rattan Singh 1977 (1) SLR 750, Cholan Roadways Ltd. Versus G. Thirugnanasambandam (2005) 3 SCC 241 and Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) Versus A.T. Mane AIR 2004 SC 4761. 10. Ms. Pushkarna, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has further argued that even if the plea, that in the event of finding of the Inquiry Officer vitiated for perversity, it would like to lead evidence to prove the misconduct of the delinquent workman before the Labour Court, is not taken by the Management in its written statement, the Labour Court is under a legal obligation to give an opportunity to the Management to prove the misconduct of the delinquent workman, if such an opportunity is prayed for by the Management at any stage of the proceedings. In support of her said contention, she has relied upon a Constitution Bench Judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Versus Smt. Lakshmidevamma and Anr., 2001 LAB I.C. 1777, Divyash Pandit Versus Management N.C.C.B.M. AIR 2006 SC 92 , M/s. Amrit Vanaspati Co. Ltd. Versus Khem Chand and Anr., AIR 2006 SC 2739 and State of Haryana and Anr. Versus Rattan Singh (supra). 11. Per contra, Mr. Varun Prasad, appearing on behalf of the respondent/workman has argued that once the Labour Court has returned a finding that the report of the Inquiry Officer is vitiated for perversity, then it is not open for this court to sit in appeal over such a finding of the Labour Court and substitute its own view in place of the view of the Labour Court. The learned counsel for the respondent has further argued that since the petitioner/Management has not taken a plea in its written statement that it would like to adduce evidence to prove the misconduct of the respondent before the Labour Court in the event the findings of the Inquiry Officer are vitiated by perversity, the Labour Court could not have granted opportunity to the Management to prove evidence of misconduct before the Labour Court. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent in fact has supported the impugned orders of the Labour Court. He also placed reliance on Constitution Bench Judgment of the Supreme Court in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Versus Smt. Lakshmidevamma and Anr. (supra) , on which reliance is placed by the counsel for the petitioner also. The contention of Mr. Varun Prasad is that since the majority of the Judges in the Constitution Bench judgment have held against grant of opportunity to lead evidence, the Labour Court was justified in declining opportunity to the petitioner/Management to lead evidence to prove the misconduct of the respondent. 12. I have carefully considered the rival submissions advanced by the counsel for both the parties. I have also gone through the record of the Court below and the proceedings of the inquiry conducted before the Inquiry Officer. 13. The first question that arise for consideration is whether it is open to this Court to review the findings of the Labour Court on the point of inquiry issue contained in the first order of the Labour Court dated 08.11.2004 The counsel for the respondent/workman has not cited any judgment to show that the High Court cannot re-examine the order of the Labour Court on the point of perversity. I do not agree with the contention urged on behalf of the respondent because I am of the view that in case the findings of the court below on any point is opposed to material on record, then certainly this Court can go into the correctness or otherwise of such findings. In case, the contention of the workman that the finding regarding perversity recorded by the court below cannot be reviewed by the High Court exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, then the same may result in grave injustice in cases where the findings of the court below on the point of perversity is highly erroneous. In case, the contention of the workman that the finding regarding perversity recorded by the court below cannot be reviewed by the High Court exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, then the same may result in grave injustice in cases where the findings of the court below on the point of perversity is highly erroneous. Looked from that perspective, it may be noted that the Labour Court in its order dated 08.11.2004 has found no violation of principles of natural justice. The Labour Court itself reached to the conclusion that the inquiry held against the respondents before the Inquiry Officer was in conformity with the rules and adequate opportunity was granted to the respondents to prove his defence. Despite holding that the inquiry against the respondent was conducted as per rules and according to principles of natural justice, the Labour Court recorded findings of perversity. The relevant portion of the impugned order of the Labour Court dated 08.11.2004 is extracted below : 4. I have considered respective submissions of both the Ld. A.Rs for the parties and perused the material on record. The enquiry proceedings are admitted by the workman as well during his cross-examination. According to Ex. WW-1/M-3, workman was granted opportunity to cross-examine of the witnesses of the management appeared during the enquiry proceedings and also Enquiry office granted opportunity to produce witness on behalf of the opportunity to produce witnesses on behalf of the workman. The witnesses were cross-examined by the workman and also examined the witnesses, therefore, on this aspect, I do not find any illegality in the proceedings. Now, coming to the contentions regarding non-supply of document and list of witnesses. But there is no application moved by the workman during the enquiry proceedings regarding any prejudice or infraction of his legal rights, therefore, on this aspect, I do not find any illegality. 5. Now, coming to the contentions regarding perverse findings. In the charge sheet management alleged three articles of charges. Firstly, the workman did not issue tickets to group of 11 passengers after receiving money. Secondly, non-issuing of tickets to the passengers from starting point of the bus and third, there was less cash with the conductor. In this regard the material evidence is of one Sh.Guru Dutt S/o Sh.Tara Dutt which is the basis of charge sheet. In his statement, on the spot as per Ex. Secondly, non-issuing of tickets to the passengers from starting point of the bus and third, there was less cash with the conductor. In this regard the material evidence is of one Sh.Guru Dutt S/o Sh.Tara Dutt which is the basis of charge sheet. In his statement, on the spot as per Ex. WW-1/M-1 on the back side of it, he had started that they boarded in group of 11 passengers in the bus from Rajinder Nagar, Shaibabad and paid Rs.35.50 to the conduct but due to rush tickets were not issued and process of issuing of tickets checking staff was boarded in the bus. The management witness Ram Chander Dhiya first, when appeared in enquiry he reiterated these facts. He admitted that the passenger voluntarily given their statement. The other witness Balbir Singh also deposed these facts. The workman in the enquiry stated in his defence the passenger may be called and also appeared as witness. In my considered, in these circumstances, the enquiry office is of opinion regarding proving the charges is based irrelevant consideration. The foundation of the charge-sheet or statement of the Guru Dutt passenger who, nowhere, stated that conductor voluntarily received money and did not issue tickets. The story of the workman is believable and he was issuing the tickets to group of passengers and not sitting idle, therefore, in these circumstances, the findings of the enquiry officer of the enquiry is perverse and based on irrelevant material and considerations. Hence on this aspect the enquiry is against the principles of natural justice. 6. On the basis of above observations and discussions, the enquiry issues is decided against the management and in favour of the workman. 14. In State of Haryana and Anr. Versus Rattan Singh, (supra). It was held by the Honble Supreme Court that in a domestic inquiry, the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. It was further held in the said judgment that the essence of a judicial approach is objectivity, exclusion of extraneous materials or considerations and observance of rules of natural justice. Para 4 of the said judgment is relevant and is extracted below :- It is well settled that in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply. Para 4 of the said judgment is relevant and is extracted below :- It is well settled that in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. It is true that departmental authorities and administrative tribunal must be careful in evaluating such material and should not glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not relevant under the Indian Evidence Act. For this proposition it is not necessary to cite decisions nor text books, although we have been taken through case law and other authorities by counsel on both sides. The essence of a judicial approach is objectivity, exclusion of extraneous materials or considerations and observance of rules of natural justice. Of course, fairplay is the basis and if perversity or arbitrariness, bias or surrender of independence of judgment vitiate the conclusions reached, such finding, even though of a domestic tribunal, cannot be held good. However, the courts below misdirected themselves, perhaps, in insisting that passengers who had come in and gone out should be chased and brought before the tribunal before a valid finding could be recorded. The residuum rule to which counsel for the respondent referred, based upon certain passages from American jurisprudence does not go to that extent nor does the passage from Halsbury insist on such rigid requirement. The simple point is, was there some evidence or was there no evidence not in the sense of the technical rules governing regular court proceedings but in a fair common sense way as men of understanding and wordly wisdom will accept. Viewed in this way, sufficiency of evidence in proof of the finding by a domestic tribunal is beyond scrutiny. Absence of any evidence in support of a finding is certainly available for the court to look into because it amounts to an error of law apparent on the record. We find, in this case, that the evidence of Chamanlal, Inspector of the flying squad, is some evidence which has relevance to the charge leveled against the respondent. Therefore, we are unable to hold that the order is invalid on that ground. 15. We find, in this case, that the evidence of Chamanlal, Inspector of the flying squad, is some evidence which has relevance to the charge leveled against the respondent. Therefore, we are unable to hold that the order is invalid on that ground. 15. In Cholan Roadways Ltd. Versus G. Thirugnanasambandam (supra), the Honble Supreme Court taking note of its earlier judgment in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Versus K.S. Gandhi and Others, (1991) 2 SCC 716 has held that there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the principles of natural justice are required to be complied with in a domestic inquiry but principles cannot be stretched too far nor can it be applied in a vacuum. It was further held in the said case that the standard of proof required in a domestic inquiry vis--vis a criminal trial is absolutely different. Whereas in the former preponderance of probability would suffice; in the matter, proof beyond all reasonable doubt is imperative. .16. In Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) Versus A.T. Mane (supra), it was held by the Honble Supreme Court that once a domestic tribunal based on evidence comes to a particular conclusion, normally it is not open to the appellate tribunals and the .courts to substitute their substantive opinion in the place of one arrived at by the domestic tribunal. This case decided by the Honble Supreme Court was akin to the case in hand. In that case also, the inquiry was conducted against the delinquent conductor of the bus and the domestic tribunal had accepted the evidence of the Traffic Inspector who had checked the bus and on that basis held the conductor guilty of misconduct. The findings of the Inquiry Officer in that case were set aside up to the High Court and while dealing with the same, the Honble Supreme Court held that the courts below misdirected themselves in insisting on evidence of the ticketless passengers to reject the findings of the Inquiry Officer. The dismissal of the delinquent conductor for his proven misconduct was upheld by the Honble Supreme Court in the aforementioned case. 17. A similar question arose for consideration before the court earlier in Delhi Transport Corporation Versus Shree Kumar and Another, 2004 V AD (Delhi) 597. The dismissal of the delinquent conductor for his proven misconduct was upheld by the Honble Supreme Court in the aforementioned case. 17. A similar question arose for consideration before the court earlier in Delhi Transport Corporation Versus Shree Kumar and Another, 2004 V AD (Delhi) 597. In Shree Kumars Case (supra) also, the allegations were against the conductor of a bus who was accused of taking full fare charges from the passengers for their journey but did not issue them tickets and the same was held to be a misconduct against him for which he was removed from the service. .18. The conclusion of the Labour Court contained in its impugned order dated 08.11.2004 that the findings of the inquiry officer is vitiated for perversity has to be examined in the light of the aforementioned judgments of the Honble Supreme Court. It may be seen from the relevant portion of the impugned order dated 08.11.2004 extracted above that the Labour Court has not discussed the evidence that was adduced by the Management before the Inquiry Officer. The decision of the court below regarding perversity of the Inquiry proceedings is cryptic and depict total non-application of mind. On an appraisal of the evidence of Shri Ram Chander Dahiya, T.I. and Shri Balbir Singh, ATI produced by the Management before the Inquiry Officer, it may be seen that the charge against the respondent/workman has been adequately proved. On 23.01.1992 when the bus in which respondent was posted as a conductor was checked, the respondent had admitted his guilt in writing before the checking staff. The memo which contains admission of guilt by the respondent and bears his signature is Annexure P-5 at page 38 of the paper book. This aspect has been completely ignored by the Labour Court while holding the findings of the Inquiry Officer to be perverse. When respondent himself has admitted his guilt no further proof was required. However, there is ample evidence on record produced by Management before the Inquiry Officer to prove that the respondent has charged full fare from group of 11 passengers and had not issued tickets to them. This adequately proves dishonesty on the part of the respondent. A perusal of the statement of respondent himself which he gave to the Inquiry Officer on 20.04.1992 would prove his guilt in regard to the above. This adequately proves dishonesty on the part of the respondent. A perusal of the statement of respondent himself which he gave to the Inquiry Officer on 20.04.1992 would prove his guilt in regard to the above. The testimony of the defence witness, Shri Rattan Laldoes not help the respondent in any way. The said defence witness has made a statement regarding non-issuing of tickets to 5/6 passengers including himself whereas the respondent in his statement said that the tickets were not issued to two groups of passengers, one group comprising 11 passengers and other comprising 5/6 passengers. The respondent was charged for non-issuing of tickets to the group of 11 passengers after charging full fare from them. In the opinion of this court, the Inquiry Officer rightly held the respondent guilty of misconduct for which he was charged by a charge sheet dated .06.02.1992. It seems that the Labour Court has even ignored the order of the Industrial Tribunal dated 16.04.2001 by which approval was granted to the petitioner/Management under Section 33(2)(b) for its decision to remove the respondent from service on account of his proven misconduct. The question of perversity was also examined by the Industrial Tribunal in its order dated 16th April, 2001. There is not even a whisper in the impugned order of the court below regarding the order of the Industrial Tribunal. This shows complete non-application of mind by the Labour Court. It was not open to the Labour Court to have recorded a cryptic finding of perversity without discussing the basis for such a perception. The only reason which Labour Court has given for recording a finding of perversity is that the passenger Guru Dutt has stated in his statement that the respondent has not received the money voluntarily and has not issued the tickets. The question of voluntariness in receiving the money was out of context. The person posted as conductor in a bus has to take fare from the passengers travelling in the bus and to issue tickets to them. From where the question of voluntariness comes in collecting the fare and issuing the tickets This is a part of the duty of the conductor to collect fares and issue tickets to the passengers. In the present case, the conclusion arrived at by the Inquiry Officer in relation to guilt of the respondent cannot be faulted with. From where the question of voluntariness comes in collecting the fare and issuing the tickets This is a part of the duty of the conductor to collect fares and issue tickets to the passengers. In the present case, the conclusion arrived at by the Inquiry Officer in relation to guilt of the respondent cannot be faulted with. In that view of the matter, the impugned order of the Labour Court dated 08.11.2004 holding the findings of the Inquiry Officer to be perverse cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny and is, therefore, set aside. 19. On account of proven misconduct of the respondent/ workman, the petitioner has removed him from service w.e.f. 26.05.1992. The punishment awarded to the workman appears to be commensurate with his misconduct proved against him in the domestic enquiry. It is not only the amount involved but the mental set up, the type of duty performed and similar relevant circumstances which go into the decision making process while considering whether the punishment is proportionate or disproportionate. If the charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are in-built requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct in such cases has to be dealt with iron hands. Where the person deals with public money or engaged in financial transactions or acts in a fiduciary capacity, the highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness is a must. In the present case, since the respondent/workman has defied the confidence of the petitioner by taking full fare from a group of 11 passengers and by not issuing tickets to them, for that reason, the order of his removal from service is fully justified and this court would not like to interfere in the order of punishment. 20. Since the findings of the court below on the point of perversity of the Inquiry report has been set aside, this court need not go into the second question regarding the right of the Management to lead evidence to prove the misconduct of the workman in the event of findings of the departmental inquiry is vitiated for perversity. In the present case, no such opportunity is required by the Management because this court agrees with the decision of the disciplinary authority for removing the respondent from service on account of his proven misconduct for which he was charge-sheeted vide charge sheet dated 06.02.1992. 21. In the present case, no such opportunity is required by the Management because this court agrees with the decision of the disciplinary authority for removing the respondent from service on account of his proven misconduct for which he was charge-sheeted vide charge sheet dated 06.02.1992. 21. In view of the above, this writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned orders of the court below dated 08.11.2004 and 04.07.2005 in ID No. 192/94 are hereby set aside. The order of removal from service passed by the petitioner corporation removing the petitioner from service w.e.f. 26.05.1992 is confirmed. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, parties are left to bear their own costs.