Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 784 of 2001
PETITIONER:
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
RESPONDENT:
B.S. HULLIKATTI
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/01/2001
BENCH:
B.N. KIRPAL & MRS. RUMA PAL
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
2001 (1) SCR 487
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Special Leave granted.
In the instant case, the respondent was a Bus Conductor working with the
appellant-Corporation. A domestic inquiry was held in which it was alleged
that he had collected at a particular trip of the bus Rs. 2.25 from each of
the 35 passengers but had issued tickets of the denomination of Rs. 1.75
only.
As a result of the domestic inquiry, the respondent was dismissed from
service. Reference was made to the Labour Court which came to the
conclusion that the domestic inquiry was not fair or proper. Opportunity
was given to the appellant to produce evidence which it did.
After recording the evidence, the Labour Court by the impugned award came
to the conclusion that the allegation that the Conductor had issued tickets
of Rs. 1.75 instead of Rs. 2.25 was proved but it had not been proved that
he had collected the amount of Rs. 2.25 from the passengers. The Labour
Court set aside the punishment of dismissal and directed reinstatement with
full back wages. On a writ petition being filed by the appellant-
Corporation, the Single Judge dismissed the same after noting that the
Labour Court had awarded 50 percent of the back wages with reinstatement.
Realising that this was a mistake, the Single Judge rectified the same and
ordered reinstatement with full back wages, the letters patent appeal was
dismissed. Hence, this appeal by special leave.
On the facts as found by the Labour Court and the High Court, it is evident
that there was a short-charging of the fare by the respondent from as many
as 35 passengers. We are informed that the respondent had been in service
as a Conductor for nearly 22 years. It is difficult to believe that he did
not know what was the correct fare which was to be charged. Further-more,
the appellant had during the disciplinary proceedings taken into account
the fact that the respondent had been found guilty for as many as 36 times
on different dates. Be that as it may, the principle of res ipsa loquitur,
namely, the facts speak for themselves, is clearly applicable in the
instant case. Charging 50 paise per ticket less from as many as 35
passengers could only be to get financial benefit by the Conductor. this
act was either dishonest or was so grossly negligent that the respondent
was not fit to be retained as a Conductor because such action or inaction
of his is bound to result in financial loss to the appellant-Corporation.
It is misplaced sympathy by the Labour Courts in such cases when on
checking it is fund that the Bus Conductors have either not issued tickets
to a large number of passengers, though they should have, or have issued
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
tickets of a lower denomination knowing fully well the correct fare to be
charged. It is the responsibility of the Bus Conductors to collect the
correct fare from the passengers and deposit the same with the Company.
they act in a fiduciary capacity and it would be a case of gross misconduct
if knowingly they do not collect any fare or the correct amount of fare.
In our opinion, the order of dismissal should not have been set aside, but
we are informed that in the meantime the respondent has already
superannuated. We, therefore, on the special facts of this case, do not set
aside the order of reinstatement, but direct that the respondent would not
be entitled to any back wages at all but he would be entitled to the
retiral benefits.
The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.