Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN & J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.
Rajasthan State TPT Corpn. & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Bajrang Lal – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4104 of 2007
Decided On : 14-03-2014
AIR 1975 SC 2238; AIR 1996 SC 2133; AIR 2008 SC 2553; (2009) 4 SCC 299; AIR 2010 SC 2662 – Referred
(b) Administration of Justice – Judicial Review – Respondent challenging departmental enquiry and order of dismissal alleging non-compliance of natural justice – Not substantiating the same – Only bald allegations on affidavit – Pleadings not complete – Trial court accepting the allegation on face value and decreeing the suit holding that appellant did not rebut it – It is for the party alleging something to prove it – Suit cannot be decreed on failure of opponent in rebutting an allegation not established by cogent materials – Trail court holding that burden of proof was on the respondent/plaintiff – Yet in absence thereof decreeing the suit in his favour – Not sustainable. (Para 14)
AIR 1998 SC 1608; AIR 1998 SC 2779; (1999) 1 SCC 141; AIR 2001 SC 1237; AIR 2001 SC 1298; AIR 2001 SC 1684; (2003) 1 SCC 18; (2005) 7 SCC 653; (2005) 8 SCC 252; AIR 2010 SC 2221; AIR 2010 SC 3823; (2012) 8 SCC 148 – Relied upon
(c) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 100 – Second appeal – Factual findings by trail court and the first appellate court perverse – Second Appeal on question of fact – Can be entertained – No prohibition for the High Court to entertain the second appeal even on question of fact where factual findings are found to be perverse. (Para 17)
(2012) 8 SCC 148 – Relied upon
(d) Administration of Justice – Judicial Review – Service law – Dismissal – On charge of corruption – Well settled that dismissal is proper punishment for charge of corruption – Appellant bus conductor dismissed for carrying passengers without issuing ticket to them despite having realised the fare – Dismissal not disproportionate. (Para 19, 20)
(2010) 6 SCC 555 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
The respondent, a trainee conductor on daily basis, was served two chargesheets for carrying passengers without tickets though collecting the fares.
The charges were held proved by the enquiry officer and respondent was dismissed.
The respondent challenged the punishment by filing a suit which was decreed.
The first and second appeals against the decree filed by the appellant were dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
The impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
Result: Appeal allowed
The legal document discusses several important principles related to employment law, disciplinary actions, and the jurisdiction of courts in second appeals.
Firstly, it clarifies that there is no absolute prohibition for a High Court to entertain a second appeal on questions of fact, especially when the factual findings are found to be perverse. This indicates that the High Court can interfere with factual findings if they are shown to be unreasonable or unsupported by evidence (!) (!) .
Secondly, the document emphasizes that a party alleging misconduct or procedural violations must substantiate their claims with sufficient evidence. If pleadings are vague or unsupported by proper evidence, courts are not obliged to entertain such claims (!) (!) .
Thirdly, it underscores that in disciplinary proceedings, adherence to principles of natural justice—such as providing the accused with an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and access relevant documents—is essential. Failure to do so can vitiate the proceedings and render the termination order invalid (!) (!) .
Additionally, the document states that the burden of proof lies with the party making allegations. A finding of misconduct or procedural violation cannot be based solely on unsubstantiated assertions (!) .
Finally, regarding the proportionality of punishment, it affirms that in cases involving corruption or serious misconduct, dismissal from service is the appropriate and often the only justified penalty. The courts recognize that in such cases, a punishment less than dismissal would be disproportionate and contrary to public interest (!) (!) (!) .
In summary, the document highlights that courts can entertain second appeals on factual grounds if findings are perverse, that allegations require proper proof, that principles of natural justice must be followed in disciplinary proceedings, and that severe misconduct warrants appropriate disciplinary measures, including dismissal.
ORDER
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as `Corporation’) against the judgment and order dated 8.11.2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan (Jaipur Bench) in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 449 of 2003 upholding the judgment and decree dated 28.1.2003 in Civil Regular Appeal No. 119 of 2002 passed by Additional District Judge, Jaipur, by which and whereunder, it has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 30.11.1994 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) No. 2, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 1346 of 1988.
2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that:
A. The respondent while working as a trainee conductor on daily basis was found carrying certain passengers without tickets and, thus, an enquiry was initiated against him. Two chargesheets dated 11.3.1988 were served upon him. In the first chargesheet, it was alleged that on 24.2.1988 while he was on duty enroute Kota-Rajpura, when his bus was checked, it was found that 10 passengers were traveling without tickets, though he had collected the fare from each of them. In the second chargesheet, it had been alleged that when he was on duty on route Kota-Neemuch, his bus was checked and he was found carrying two passengers traveling on tickets of lesser amount though, he had collected the full fare from them. The respondent submitted separate reply to the said chargesheets which were not found satisfactory. Therefore, the enquiry officer was appointed to enquire into the matter and a regular enquiry ensued. The enquiry officer after conclusion of the enquiry submitted the report holding that charges leveled against the respondent in both the chargesheets stood proved against him.
B. After considering the report, the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 5.8.1988 passed order of punishment of removal from the service. The respondent filed a Civil Suit on 2.9.1988 challenging the order of removal alleging that he was not supplied with the documents referred to in the chargesheets, nor was given the enquiry report nor other documents. More so, the quantum of punishment was disproportionate to the proved delinquency.
C. The Suit was contested by the appellants denying all the averments made therein. However, on conclusion of the trial, the Suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 30.11.1994.
D. Aggrieved, the Corporation filed Civil Regular Appeal No. 119 of 2002, which stood dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 28.1.2003.
E. The Corporation challenged both the aforesaid judgments by filing Regular Second Appeal No. 449 of 2003, which also stood dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree. Hence, this appeal.
3. Shri S. K. Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, has submitted that none of the courts below have examined the case in correct perspective. The stand taken by the appellants that the Suit itself was not maintainable, as the only remedy available to the respondent was to approach the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act 1947’) has not been properly examined by the courts below. More so, the pleadings in the plaint were vague. The respondent/plaintiff failed to prove any of the allegations made in the plaint, therefore, the courts below have erred in holding that the enquiry stood vitiated due to violation of statutory provisions and principles of natural justice. The enquiry had been conducted strictly in accordance with law, the provisions of Section 35 of the Standing Order have been fully complied with and the respondent was given full opportunity to defend himself. Therefore, the findings of fact recorded by the courts below in this respect are perverse. The respondent was found to have embezzled money of the corporation and the punishment of dismissal cannot be held to be disproportionate to the proved delinquency. Thus, the appeal deserves to be allowed.
4.
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
