Back
2007(4) Supreme 14
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B. Sinha & Markandey Katju, JJ
U.P.S.R.T.C.—Appellant
versus
Ram Kishan Arora—Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2410 OF 2007
Decided on : 09-05-2007
Facts of the case —
1. Respondent conductor working in with Appellant Corporation herein in the instant case was dismissed from service on charge of misconduct. On Reference of industrial dispute to labour Court, it was held that finding of guilt arrived at against respondents in departmental proceedings was perverse. Labour Court directed reinstatement of respondent with full back wages. High Court on writ appellation held that respondent was to be reinstated in services with stoppage of his two increments. However high Court held that respondent was not entitled to any back wages.
2.Aggrieved by said order of High Court, appellant corporation has preferred present appeal.
Findings of the Court :
The Court held that High Court while exercising powers under writ jurisdiction cannot deal with aspects like whether quantum of punishment meted out by management to a workman for a particular misconduct is sufficient or not. Charges leveled against respondent having being proved, High Court erred in reducing punishment of Stoppage of two increments only. No conclusion was arrived at by high Court that quantum of punishment imposed upon respondent was disproportionate to gravity of his misconduct. Only Course open to High Court was to remit matter to employer for reconsideration of question in regard to quantum of punishment. High Court without assigning any reason erred in substituting its opinion to that of disciplinary authority. Impugned judgment of High Court being unsustainable, held liable to be set aside. Award of labour Court was set aside. Punishment of removal imposed by disciplinary authority was upheld.
Certainly. Based on the facts and the connected judgement provided, here is the citation in the requested format:
The court's decision underscores that disciplinary authorities are primarily responsible for determining appropriate penalties based on the evidence of misconduct. Judicial review is limited to assessing whether the punishment is disproportionate or arbitrary, rather than re-evaluating the factual findings of guilt. The courts should exercise caution when substituting or modifying disciplinary sanctions, ensuring that such actions are justified by principles of proportionality and reasonableness. Interference by the judiciary is justified only when the penalty is manifestly unjust or based on improper considerations, reaffirming that disciplinary decisions should generally be upheld unless they are arbitrary or grossly disproportionate to the misconduct established (!) .
Please let me know if you'd like the citation formatted differently or further details.
JUDGMENT
S.B. SINHA, J. —
1.Leave granted.
2.Respondent was working with the appellant Corporation constituted under the Road Transport Corporation Act as a conductor. He was discharging his duties in the said capacity in the bus bearing registration No. UP-07B/2932 plying on Dehradun Bhukki route. The said bus was checked by an inspection team. 35 passengers were travelling in the said bus without any travelling ticket although the respondent allegedly had realised fare from them. He obstructed in the checking process by threatening and abusing the authorities. He even did not permit them to make any entry in the way bill. A report in regard to his misconduct was submitted whereupon a chargesheet was issued on 4.04.1996. One Shri T.K. Vishen, Assistant Regional Manager, Dehradun was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer was transferred and in his place one Shri R.K. Gupta prepared the Enquiry Report. The charges of misconduct stood proved against him in the departmental proceedings. Upon issuance of a second show cause notice and upon consideration of the cause shown by him, the appointing authority came to the opinion that it will not be in the interest of the Corporation to keep the respondent in service. He was, therefore, removed from service by an order dated 7.11.1997. A departmental appeal preferred by the respondent thereagainst was also dismissed. He thereafter raised an industrial dispute.
3.The Labour Court inter alia held that the finding of guilt arrived at against the respondent in the departmental proceeding was perverse. It was further found that the Enquiry Officer Shri T.K. Vishen having been transferred, Shri R.K. Gupta could not have submitted the Enquiry Report. The Labour Court, therefore, directed reinstatement of the respondent with full back wages. A writ application questioning the correctness of the said award was filed by the appellant herein wherein a learned Single Judge of the Uttaranchal High Court held :
(a)“I am not in full agreement with the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal. The Tribunal ought not to have recorded the finding that there is no evidence of record regarding the critical behaviour against the officials. Shri Damodar Kala, the eyewitness produced by the employers, who stated on oath that at the time of checking, some wrangling between the workman and the officials were going on. The Respondent No.3 had himself completed/ forged the details on the way bill. Therefore, I find that there was some bad intention on the part of Respondent No. 3. The critical behaviour of Respondent No. 3 was also proved against the officials.
(b)Therefore, in my opinion, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I find some fault in the behaviour of the Respondent No. 3. The critical behaviour of Respondent No. 3 against the officials is shocking one. Therefore, it is provided that Respondent No. 2 shall be reinstated in service with stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. However, he shall not be entitled for any back wages.
(c)The writ petition is partly allowed. The Respondent No.2/ Workman shall be reinstated in service with stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. However, it is made clear that he will not be entitled for any back wages.”
4.The Appellant Corporation alone is before us in this appeal. The respondent has not filed any appeal.
5.The respondent, having not questioned the finding arrived at by the High Court, as noticed hereinbefore, that he was guilty of commission of a serious misconduct, the only question which arises for consideration is as to whether it was open to the High Court to substitute the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority.
6.It is now well-settled that commission of a criminal breach of trust by a person holding a position of trust is a misconduct of serious nature. The charges levelled against the respondent having been proved, in our opinion, the High Court in exercise of its jurisd
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
