Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 696 of 2006
PETITIONER:
Uttaranchal Transport Corporation
RESPONDENT:
Sanjay Kumar Nautiyal
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27/02/2008
BENCH:
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & D.K. JAIN
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J
1. In this appeal, Uttaranchal Roadways Transport
Corporation (in short the ’Corporation’) calls in question
legality of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of
the Uttaranchal High Court partly allowing the writ petition
filed by the appellant-Corporation. Before the High Court the
Corporation had challenged the order passed by the Presiding
Officer, Labour Court, Dehradun in Reference Case No.25 of
2000 whereby it had ordered that respondent shall be re-
instated into service with 50% back wages with minor
punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative
effect.
2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
Sanjay Kumar Nautiyal-respondent was employed as
conductor in the appellant-establishment and was posted at
Saharanpur Depot at the relevant time. On 22.4.1996
respondent was assigned duty of conductor in bus having
registration No.UP-15-9496. Duty of respondent included
booking of tickets and collecting money when the said bus
plied on its assigned route. The respondent was duty
bound to keep correct accounts by filling details of tickets
and making entry in the waybill sheet provided by the
appellant, thereby showing number of passengers
travelling, place of boarding and destination of
passengers.
On the same day i.e. 22.4.1996, surprise checking
was conducted by the personnel of appellant under the
supervision of Jamil Ahmad, Traffic Inspector with M.A.
Khan and Nandan Singh, Assistant Traffic Inspectors. The
bus was plying on the Saharanpur Haridwar route. On
checking by the above-mentioned persons it was found
that the respondent had not mentioned the destination
and boarding places of the passengers in the waybill. The
column pertaining to above-mentioned details was left
blank deliberately in order to mis-appropriate public
money. Further, the respondent had also manipulated the
entries and had entered wrong/lesser amounts charged
from the passengers. Tickets issued by the respondent
also did not clearly show the destination and boarding
places of the passengers and it was deliberately written in
the said manner, by the respondent in order to conceal
the correct information in case of any cross verification.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5
Some tickets issued by the respondent did not show any
destination or boarding place, which was left blank
deliberately. The respondent had not issued tickets to
about half of the total passengers travelling on the bus
and had also charged money against the un-issued ticket,
from the passengers. Entry regarding the above-
mentioned irregularities by the respondent had been
made by checking staff in the waybill. Therefore, it is
absolutely clear that respondent had mis-appropriated
the public money, and had deliberately made wrong
entries to such effect in the way bill.
Checking staff of the Corporation made the
complaint against respondent on the same day i.e.
22.4.1996. The conduct of respondent from the above-
mentioned facts was treated to be grossly improper and
against the Service Rules as framed for the employees of
appellant. The conduct also amounts to mis-appropriation
of public money and cheating.
On receiving complaint from checking staff, Assistant
Regional Manager, Saharanpur issued directions to Senior
Station-in-charge, Saharanpur to give report after
examining the documents regarding the previous way bills
and ticket counter foils submitted by the respondent. On
examination of the way bills and ticket counter foils by
Senior Station-in-charge it was found that the respondent
attended duties only for four days in the relevant month
before the surprise checking was conducted. It was found
that on all occasions respondent had taken recourse to
similar tactics in filling up of passenger tickets and
waybills, as was found by checking staff on 22.4.1996.
Over writing in the tickets, destination and boarding place
of passenger not mentioned in the ticket, if it was
mentioned, the same was not clear or legible or readable.
There was no carbon impression found on backside of
ticket. In the waybill the amount of money has been
altered by over writing and deducted from the original.
Report was submitted to Assistant Regional Manager, U.P.
SRTC, Saharanpur on 9.7.1996.
After receiving report Assistant Regional Manager,
Saharanpur forwarded the matter to Regional Manager,
Dehradun with recommendation of disciplinary enquiry
along with the above mentioned enquiry report. Regional
Manager, Dehradun after consideration of complaint
against the respondent by checking staff, report of Traffic
Inspector, recommendation of Assistant Regional
Manager, Saharanpur and seriousness as well as gravity
of the matter, initiated disciplinary proceedings against
the respondent. Charge sheet was served upon the
respondent and in total 13 charges were framed against
him on the basis of above mentioned records, by the
appellant.
The respondent filed reply to the charge sheet served
upon him by the appellant. Respondent could not explain
the irregularities committed and took the way of general
defence that the column in the waybill was left blank due
to the fact that large number of passengers were travelling
in the bus. The respondent further claimed that there was
no over-writing done by him on the waybill, and someone
else may have done it, in order to falsely implicate him.
The respondent refused to cross-examine the witness
produced by the appellant before the enquiry officer, Shiv
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5
Ratan Kumar, Traffic Inspector. The witness who had
conducted enquiry proved the report before enquiry
officer. The respondent also failed to give clarification to
enquiry officer regarding blank columns in tickets and
carbon impression. Again he took the general defence that
it has been made by mistake. The enquiry report was
submitted to Regional Manager, Dehradun and in the
report it was found that charges proposed in the charge
sheet were proved against the respondent on the basis of
documents, oral statement and circumstances of the case.
The report was submitted to Regional Manager,
Dehradun.
Regional Manager, Dehradun on perusal of enquiry
proceedings as well as report and evidence recorded by
enquiry officer (documentary as well as oral) proposed
termination of services of the respondent along with
forfeiture of salary pertaining to suspension period of the
respondent. Show cause notice to such effect was issued
to the respondent. Respondent replied to the show cause
notice and raised certain issues regarding the conduct of
disciplinary proceedings. However, Regional Manager,
Dehradun found the respondent guilty of gross
misconduct on duty as well as mis-appropriation of public
funds/ticket money and also for submitting tempered
waybills. Regional Manager, Dehradun dismissed
respondent from service and forfeited the salary for
suspension period.
Appeal against the order of Regional Manager,
Dehradun before General Manager, Western Division,
UPSRTC, Meerut filed by respondent was dismissed.
Second appeal before Assistant Managing Director,
UPSRTC, Lucknow was also dismissed. Subsequently,
respondent filed Adjudication Case No.25 of 2000 before
the Labour Court, Dehradun, thereby challenging the
dismissal from service by the appellant. The Labour Court
vide order dated 31.7.2000 set aside the dismissal of
respondent by appellant. The punishment/penalty to
respondent was considered to be harsh in comparison to
the quantum of misconduct and it was reduced to
stoppage of two annual increments in salary without
future effect with forfeiture of 50% of the back salary.
It is to be noted that the Labour Court had found the
respondent guilty of charges framed in the charge sheet.
Labour Court did not deem it proper to record oral
evidence of the parties and had only relied upon the
documentary evidence pertaining to the disciplinary
enquiry.
Aggrieved by the above mentioned order of Labour
Court dated 31.7.2000 in Adjudication case No.25 of
2000, appellant filed Writ Petition before the High Court
of Uttaranchal at Nainital. The High Court dismissed the
Writ Petition of appellant on the ground that the
presumption that the punishment of removal/dismissal
from service was excessive and Labour Court was correct
in exercising powers provided under Section 6(2-A) of U.P.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ’Act’) by
setting aside the order of removal/dismissal.
Before the High Court primary stand of the appellant was
that in view of the proved mis-conduct of respondent the
punishment awarded was fully justified and the Labour Court
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5
should not have interfered with the punishment. The High
Court did not accept the stand. It noted that the amount
involved was meager and therefore the punishment awarded
was dis-proportionate. However, the High Court held that the
respondent shall not be paid any back wages but other
punishments awarded were maintained.
In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that the Labour Court and the High Court
had unnecessarily given consideration to the amount involved
without appreciating the fact that the conductor holds a post
of trust and therefore the punishment of removal from service
as awarded cannot be considered dis-proportionate.
It is submitted that order of the High Court has been
passed without appreciating the fact that termination of
service is very appropriate to the seriousness of charges
levied against the respondent in view of fraud and
misappropriation of public money by the respondent
clearly proved by the surprise checking team as well. The
station in charge and the court below have also held
respondent to be guilty of fraud and mis-appropriation of
public money and the charges levied on respondent were
clearly proved after proper enquiry.
3. In spite of service of notice the respondent has not
appeared.
4. In V. Ramana v. A.P. SRTC and Ors. (2005 (7) SCC 338)
it was held as follows:
"4..In Karnataka State Road Transport
Corporation v. B.S. Hullikatti (JT 2001 (2) SC
72), it was held that misconduct in such cases
where the bus conductor either had not issued
tickets to a large number of passengers or had
issued tickets of lower denomination,
punishment of removal is proper. It is the
responsibility of the conductors to collect
correct fare charges from the passengers and
deposit the same with the Corporation. They
act in fiduciary capacity and it would be a case
of gross misconduct if they do not collect any
fare or the correct amount of fare. A conductor
holds a post of trust. A person guilty of breach
of trust should be imposed punishment of
removal from service. The factual position
shows that the appellant’s conduct in
collecting fare at the designated place and not
collecting fare from persons who had already
travelled were in violation of various
Regulations contained in The Andhra Pradesh
State Road Transport Corporation Employees
(Conduct) Regulations, 1963 (in short
’Regulations’). In the Karnataka State Road
Transport case (supra) it was held that it is
misplaced sympathy by Courts in awarding
lesser punishments where on checking it is
found that the Bus Conductors have either not
issued tickets to a large number of passengers,
though they should have, or have issued
tickets of a lower denomination knowing fully
well the correct fare to be charged. It was
finally held that the order of dismissal should
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5
not have been set aside. The view was
reiterated by a three Judge Bench in Regional
Manager, RSRTC v. Ghanshyam Sharma (2002
(1) LLJ 234), where it was additionally
observed that the proved acts amount either to
a case of dishonesty or of gross negligence,
and Bus Conductors who by their actions or
inactions cause financial loss to the
Corporations are not fit to be retained in
service.
5. The principle was reiterated in Regional
Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C. Etawha and Ors. v. Hoti
Lal and Anr. (JT 2003 (2) SC 27)
5. Above being the position, the Labour Court and the High
Court were not justified in holding that the punishment
awarded was dis-proportionate.
6. In view of the above, the order of the High Court is set
aside. The punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority
as upheld by the appellate authority stands restored.
7. The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.