IMPORTANT POINT
High Court can modify punishment in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution only when it finds that punishment imposed was shockingly disproportionate to charges proved.

Headnote:LABOUR LAW - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 11A - Order of removal from service on charges of theft found proved against delinquent workman in domestic inquiry - Labour Court found charges duly proved and punishment of removal was justified - High Court in writ jurisdiction set aside the punishment and directed reinstatement but without back wages taking into consideration past 12 years unblemished service of respondent workman - Appeal - Past conduct of delinquent was not relevant in departmental proceedings - Once employee lost confidence of employer, it would not be safe and in interest of management to continue the employee - Punishment imposed in the facts and circumstances was not disproportionate - It is not open to Tribunal or Courts to substitute their subjective opinion in place of one arrived at domestic Tribunal - There is no place for generosity or sympathy on part of judicial forums for interfering with quantum of punishment - Impugned Judgment was liable to be set aside.
       Held : We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the orders passed by the Labour Court and of the High Court and other annexures. In our opinion, the High Court has failed to appreciate that the delinquent employee categorically admitted that he had stolen the property of the Corporation. The Labour Court, on a careful perusal of the evidence, rightly ordered removal of the respondent from service. When the delinquent employee admitted his guilt before the Enquiry Officer that he had handed over the alternator from pan shop to the police authorities and further deposed that he had handed over the stolen property and requested the Labour Court to excuse him since it was his first offence. The Tribunal rightly set aside the request by taking into consideration the entire factual circumstances on record and after careful examination of the same and held that the delinquent employee does not deserve any sympathy and therefore he ordered removal from service.(Para 15)
       The learned Single Judge considered the past conduct of the delinquent employee as one of the ground in taking a lenient view. In our view, past conduct of workman is not relevant in departmental proceedings. Likewise, the learned Single Judge has erred in holding that the workman did not involve in any misconduct of theft during his past services and on that ground, granted reinstatement with continuity of service.(Para 19)
       Learned Judges of the High Court have also failed to appreciate that once an employee lost the confidence of employer, it would not be safe and in the interest of the Corporation to continue the employee in the service. The punishment, imposed by the management in the facts and circumstances of the case, is not disproportionate and that the punishment of removal from service is the just and reasonable and proportionate to the proved misconduct.(Para 20)
       It is also not open to the Tribunal and Courts to substitute their subjective opinion in place of the one arrived at the domestic Tribunal. In the instant case, the opinion arrived at by the Corporation was rightly accepted by the Tribunal but not by the Court. We, therefore, hold that the order of reinstatement passed by the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court is contrary to the law on the basis of a catena of decisions of this Court. In such cases, there is no place for generosity or sympathy on the part of the judicial forums for interfering with the quantum of punishment of removal which cannot be justified. Similarly, the High Court can modify the punishment in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution only when it finds that the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate to the charges proved.(Para 22)

JUDGMENT

Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J. - Leave granted.

2. The Department Manager A.P.S.R.T.C. is the appellant in this appeal. The respondent joined as cleaner in the APSRTC (in short the Corporation) on 02.10.1976. While working as mechanic, he was involved in a serious case of theft. On 23/24.08.1986, while working in the night shift, he committed a theft of Fuel Injection Pump. This apart, he was also involved in stealing an alternator bearing while working in the night shift on 11.09.1986.

3. He also unauthorisedly entered into the tyre section of the depot and stole a new tube of 900 x 20 size on 23/24.09.1986. A sponge sheet was also stolen from the garage of Gajuwaka Depot, where he was working. A charge-sheet was issued to the respondent framing four charges.

The charges are as under:

1.For having stolen the Corporation property of fuel injection pump bearing No. AVD 2305 which was fitted to the engine No. 170207 during the night shift on 23/24.08.86 in the garage which constitutes misconduct under Reg. No. 28(x) of APSRTC Employees conduct, Reg.1963.

2.For having stolen the Corporation property of an alternator bearing No. 3440 during the night shift of 11.09.86 when it was fitted to the parked vehicle in the garage which constitutes misconduct under Reg. No. 28(x) of APSRTC Employees Conduct, Regulations, 1963.

3.For having unauthorisedly entered into the tyres section and stolen the new tube of 900 x 20 size on 23/24.09.86 which constitutes misconduct under Reg. No. 28(x) of APSRTC Employees Conduct, Regulations, 1963.

4.For having stolen the sponge sheets SR from the garage of Gajuwaka depot which constitutes misconduct under Reg. No. 28(x) of APSRTC Employees Conduct, Regulations, 1963.

4. An Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the charges and submit a report. In the domestic enquiry conducted on the charges levelled against the respondent, full and fair opportunity was given to him to defend himself. The Enquiry Officer, on completion of the domestic enquiry, had submitted a report holding the respondent guilty of all the charges that were levelled against him.

5. A criminal case was also initiated against the respondent in C.C. No. 751/1987. The Criminal Court by its judgment and order dated 16.05.1987 acquitted the respondent of the charges that were levelled against him.

6. Basing on the Enquiry Officers report, the Depot Manager, on independently examining the matter, came to a conclusion that orders of removal would be an appropriate punishment for the proved charges of theft. Accordingly, the Depot Manager issued proceedings for removing the respondent from the services of the Corporation.

7. Aggrieved by the order of his removal, the respondent raised an Industrial Dispute. In I.D. No. 139/1992, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the charges holding that the respondent was involved in a case of theft of the property belonging to the Corporation were correctly proved and the punishment of removal was justified under the factual circumstances of the case.

8. Aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court, the respondent preferred a writ petition before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad.

9. The learned Single Judge of the High Court came to a conclusion that the charges of theft were correctly proved against the respondent. But, however, came to a conclusion that punishment of removal was not in consonance with the gravity of the charges proved against the respondent. Accordingly, the High Court held that the Labour Court ought to have exercised its power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Accordingly, the Single Judge held that the respondent had put in 12 years of unblemished service and deserved a lenient view in the matter. Hence, by his judgment and order dated 31.12.2004, the learned Single Judge passed a judgment by setting aside the order of removal and directed reinstatement of the respondent with continuity of service but without back wages.

10. The Appellant - Corpo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 1065

IMPORTANT POINTHigh Court can modify punishment in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution only when it finds that punishment imposed was shockingly disproportionate to charges proved.

IMPORTANT POINT
High Court can modify punishment in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution only when it finds that punishment imposed was shockingly disproportionate to charges proved.