Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARUN MISHRA, L. NAGESWARA RAO, JJ.
Uttarakhand Transport Corporation (Earlier known as U.P.S.R.T.C.) & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Sukhveer Singh – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL No. 18448 of 2017 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil ) No.4012 of 2017)
Decided On : 10-11-2017
(1993) 4 SCC 727 – Relied upon
(b) Service law – Departmental enquiry – Natural justice – Supply of enquiry report – Not before issue of show cause notice but along with it – Delinquent replying to same after consideration of which punishment of dismissal imposed – Held delinquent not prejudiced by non-supply of enquiry report prior to show cause notice – Mere non supply of enquiry report does not automatically warrant re-instatement of the delinquent employee – Delinquent employee has to plead and prove serious prejudice due to the non-supply of the inquiry report – Instantly delinquent not pleading any prejudice in the writ petition – No illegality in dismissal order. (Para 6, 7)
(2008) 9 SCC 31 – Relied upon
(c) Service law – Misconduct – Acts of corruption/misappropriation cannot be condoned, even in cases where the amount involved is meagre. (Para 8)
(2010) 6 SCC 555 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
This Appeal is filed by the employer against the judgment of the High Court by which the order of dismissal of the Respondent-driver from service was set aside.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.
Leave granted.
This Appeal is filed by the employer against the judgment of the High Court by which the order of dismissal of the Respondent-driver from service was set aside by the High Court.
2. The Respondent was appointed as a driver with the Appellants-Road Transport Corporation in the year 1989. On 27th October, 1995 while driving a vehicle on Karnal-Haridwar route, the Respondent did not stop the vehicle when the inspection team signalled. The inspection team had to follow the vehicle which was stopped six kilometres away from where it was signalled to stop. On verification, it was found that 61 passengers were travelling without a ticket. The Respondent was placed under suspension on 31st October, 1995 and disciplinary proceedings were initiated by issuance of a charge sheet on 3rd November, 1995. The Respondent submitted his explanation after which an inquiry was conducted by the Assistant Regional Manager, Haridwar. After considering the material on record, the inquiry officer found that the charges against the Respondent were proved. The inquiry officer relied upon the admission of the Respondent that though there was a signal by the inspecting team to stop the vehicle at Bidouli, he stopped the vehicle only after driving for two kilometres. The explanation given by the Respondent that he drove the vehicle due to a call given by the conductor was not accepted by the inquiry officer. It was held that the Respondent was duty bound to stop the vehicle when a signal was given by the inspecting team.
The inquiry officer further held that the Respondent colluded with the conductor and did not stop the vehicle as there were a number of ticketless passengers in the bus. The disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice on 26th December, 1996 along with which the inquiry report was supplied to the Respondent. Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the Respondent to the show cause notice, the disciplinary authority dismissed him from service by an order dated 23rd April, 1997. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal filed by the Respondent on 25th July, 2000.
3. A reference was made to the labour court which was answered in favour of the Respondent on 15th November, 2007. The writ petition filed by the Respondent challenging the award of the labour court was allowed by the High Court and the labour court was directed to reconsider the matter. After remand, the labour court by an award dated 12th September, 2011 upheld the order of dismissal of the Respondent from service. The Respondent challenged the award of the labour court by filing a writ petition in the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital. The High Court while relying upon a judgment of this Court in Managing Director ECIL Hyderabad & Ors. v. B. Karunakar & Ors., (1993) 4 SCC 727 allowed the writ petition and set aside the dismissal order. The High Court directed that the Respondent should be deemed to be in service with all consequential benefits. Assailing the legality of the said judgment of the High Court, the Appellants have approached this Court.
4. It is contended on behalf of the Appellants that the impugned judgment is contrary to the law laid down in Managing Director ECIL Hyderabad & Ors. v. B. Karunakar & Ors. (supra). It is further submitted that a copy of the inquiry report was in fact supplied to the Respondent. The other point that was canvassed by the Appellants is that the Respondent neither pleaded nor proved that any prejudice was caused to him by the non-supply of the inquiry report prior to the issuance of show cause notice. The counsel for the Respondent supported the judgment of the High Court by submitting that it was incumbent upon the disciplinary authority to supply the inquiry report prior to the issuance of the show cause notice as per the judgment of this Court in Managing Director ECIL Hyderabad & Ors. v. B. Karunakar & Ors. (supra). He also relied upon certain findings in the inquiry repo
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
