The main legal point established in the judgment is that the punishment imposed for misconduct must be commensurate with the seriousness of the breach of trust and financial irregularity. The court emphasized that leniency should not be extended in cases involving financial misconduct.

JUDGMENT

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. - The petitioner of the present writ petition is a U.P. State Road Transport Corporation , as it then existed, which is a creation of the statute and it is a statutory body, and hence undisputed, it would be falling within a definition of an Industry , as it has been defined under the (from hereinafter referred to as the UPID Act ). Another fact, which particularly requires a reference at this stage itself, is that the respondent no.2/workman, herein, was working at the relevant point of time as Conductor , who was an employee of the petitioner s Organization and there exists, a master and servant relationship, which was a genuine relationship between them, which persisted to subsist till the taking of the impugned action.

2. The petitioner to the present writ petition, had preferred this writ petition challenging the impugned award, which was rendered by the learned Labour Court, Dehradun, in the Adjudication Case No.134/2000, by an award dated 12.02.2001. As a consequence thereto, the learned Labour Court while setting aside the order of the termination of services of the respondent no.2/workman, which was made vide order dated 26.11.1999, holding it to be an illegal and void, had directed to modify the punishment order by converting it to the stoppage of annual increment; in place of the order of dispensation of the services; with future effect. As a consequence thereto, the respondent no.2/workman was reinstated into the service, of the petitioner, under the modified order of punishment, under the award dated 12.02.2001.

3. The writ petition which was instituted by the petitioner/employer on 13.12.2001, and had filed the instant writ petition challenging the aforesaid award rendered in the Adjudication Case No.134 of 2000, on various accounts.

4. The history of the controversy, which engages consideration in the present writ petition, is that the respondent no.2/workman, who was working with the petitioner s organization as a Conductor. At the time, when respondent no.2 was dispensing his services i.e. on 11.07.1995, the bus which was being plied, on Dehradun Kulhan Road, bearing Registration No.UML/9133, the respondent no.2 was the Conductor of the said bus. The said bus was inspected by the team headed by the Assistant Regional Manager, on the said date and on the surprise inspection, the Checking Authority, found that out of the total numbers of passengers, who were travelling in the said bus, there were about 25 passengers, who were found to be travelling without tickets.

5. At the stage of inspection itself, the Checking Authority, had issued the tickets to the passengers, who were being carried without tickets and were found to be the ticketless passengers and a mark to the said effect was also mentioned in the tickets, which were issued to the aforesaid passengers, as well as a reference of it in the route chart also was made showing that the check tickets were issued, under the checking remarks of the Inspection Team, which has conducted by the Checking Authority on the Bus on 11.07.1995. Apart from it, the fact which has been pleaded, was that when the Inspection Team, which was headed by the Assistant Regional Manager had issued the tickets to the passengers, the way bill was also simultaneously got endorsed by the respondent no.2, precautionarily to fortify the fact that the 25 passengers, were found to be travelling without tickets in the bus. Ultimately, the Checking Authority headed by the Assistant Regional Manager, had submitted, its report to the Competent Authority on 11.07.1995 itself.

6. On 18.07.1995, in order to fortify the contents of the said report itself, which was submitted by the Inspection Team on 11.07.1995, the Assistant Regional Manager, had issued the notice to the respondent no.2/workman, calling upon him to give his explanation, with regards to the set of allegations and the findings which were recorded in the report against him, which has been recorded in the r