SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(SC) 486

2010 (4) Supreme 498
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Uttaranchal High Court)
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, Swatanter Kumar, JJ.
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation — Appellant
versus
Suresh Chand Sharma — Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 3086 of 2007
with
Suresh Chand Sharma — Appellant
versus
State of U.P. and Anr. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3088 of 2007
Decided on : 26-5-2010

IMPORTANT POINT
In cases involving corruption there cannot be any other punishment than dismissal.

Headnote:(a) Service Law – Misconduct – Recovering the fare from the passengers and not issuing tickets proves intention to misappropriate the fare. (Para 10)

       (b) Service Law – Departmental enquiry – Procedure – In a domestic enquiry, complicated principles and procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 do not apply – The only right of a delinquent employee is that he must be informed as to what are the charges against him and he must be given full opportunity to defend himself on the said charges. (Para 13)

       AIR 1977 SC 1512 – Relied upon

       (c) Judicial Review – Need to give reasons – High Court is obliged to give cogent reasons while reversing the findings of fact by a domestic tribunal – Judgment and order not supported by reasons stand vitiated. (Paras 14 and 19)

       AIR 1982 SC 1215; (2001) 10 SCC 607; AIR 2003 SC 4664; AIR 2004 SC 1794; AIR 1990 SC 2205; AIR 2008 SC 2026; AIR 1993 SC 1407 – Relied upon

       (d) Service Law – Punishment – In cases involving corruption there cannot be any other punishment than dismissal. (Para 21)

       AIR 1996 SC 1249; AIR 1975 SC 2025; (1997) 11 SCC 370; (2000) 7 SCC 517; AIR 2001 SC 930; (2002) 10 SCC 330; AIR 2006 SC 2730; (2008) 1 SCC 115 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       1.Shri Suresh Chand Sharma while working as a Conductor on bus No.UTL-9194 on the route Haridwar-Rishikesh was found, on checking on 24.5.1987, carrying 13 passengers without ticket from whom he has already recovered the fare and on 10.5.1988 on bus No.UGA-9059 on which he was working as a Conductor, 10 passengers were found without ticket. However, the employee had already recovered the fare from them.

       2.The Corporation served charge sheets upon the employee on 16.5.1988 and 7.7.1988 in respect of the mis-conducts dated 10.5.1988 and 24.5.1987. The enquiry was conducted on both the charges giving full opportunity of hearing/defence to the employee. In the enquiry charges in respect of both the misconducts had been found proved.

       3.The employee was dismissed from service.

       4. The Employee raised an industrial dispute and thus, the matter was referred by the

       Appropriate Government to the Labour Court.

       5. The Labour Court held that enquiry had been held strictly in accordance with law and both the charges in respect of both the incidents were found duly proved. Therefore, the employee was not entitled to any relief whatsoever.

       6. The High Court allowed the Writ Petition partly and directed the re-instatement of the employee without back wages.

       Finding of the Court:

       High Court’s judgment cannot be sustained.

JUDGMENT

Dr. B. S. Chauhan, J. —

1.Both these appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgment and order of the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital in Writ Petition No. 4143 of 2001 by which the Writ Petition filed by the Respondent-employee of the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Corporation’) has been allowed directing his re-instatement in service, but without back wages. The Corporation has filed appeal being aggrieved of the order of re- instatement and reversal of the Award of the Labour Court dated 28.4.1995, while Civil Appeal No.3088 of 2007 has been preferred by the employee Shri Suresh Chand Sharma claiming full back wages.

2.Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that the said employee while working as a Conductor on bus No.UTL-9194 on the route Haridwar-Rishikesh was found, on checking on 24.5.1987, carrying 13 passengers without ticket from whom he has already recovered the fare and on 10.5.1988 on bus No.UGA-9059 on which he was working as a Conductor, 10 passengers were found without ticket. However, the employee had already recovered the fare from them. The Corporation served charge sheets upon the employee on 16.5.1988 and 7.7.1988 in respect of the mis- conducts dated 10.5.1988 and 24.5.1987. Employee submitted his reply to the charge sheets. However, the management not being satisfied with his reply decided to proceed with the regular enquiry and one Shri H.L. Saxena, a retired I.F.S. Officer was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The enquiry was conducted on both the charges giving full opportunity of hearing/defence to the employee. Enquiry Officer submitted the enquiry report wherein charges in respect of both the misconducts had been found proved. The Disciplinary Authority accorded its concurrence thereto. The management served the copy of the enquiry report and issued a second show cause dated 14.12.1988 to the employee to which he submitted his reply on 9.1.1999. The Disciplinary Authority was not satisfied with his reply and after considering the material on record, the Authority passed the punishment order dated 29.1.1989 dismissing the employee from service.

3.Being aggrieved, the Employee preferred a Departmental Appeal which was duly considered by the Appellate Authority and rejected vide order dated 21.3.1990. The Employee raised an industrial dispute and thus, the matter was referred by the Appropriate Government to the Labour Court vide reference dated 19.12.1991 to the following effect:

“Whether the termination of the services of the applicant/workman Shri S.C. Sharma s/o Late Shri Om Prakash, conductor by the employer from 29.1.1989 is unjustified and/or illegal? If so, which benefit/compensation the applicant/workman is entitled and to what extent?

4.Both the parties appeared before the Labour Court, filed their replies and affidavits. Both parties filed documentary evidence and also led oral evidence and advanced submissions in support of their respective cases. The Labour Court considered all aspects and vide Award dated 28.4.1995 held that enquiry had been held strictly in accordance with law and both the charges in respect of both the incidents were found duly proved. Therefore, the employee was not entitled to any relief whatsoever.

5.Being aggrieved, the employee challenged the Award by filing C.M.W.P. No.9129 of 1996 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad which was transferred to the High Court at Nainital after Re-organisation of States and the said transferred case was registered as Writ Petition No. 4143 (M/S) of 2001. The High Court allowed the Writ Petition partly vide impugned judgment and order dated 7.9.2005 and directed the re-instatement of the employee without back wages. Hence, these appeals.

6.We have heard Shri Suraj Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation and Dr. J.N. Dubey, learned senior counsel appearing for the employee. Large number of submissions have been made by the parties and it has

























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top