DEPOT MANAGER, A.P.S.R.T.C. versus REGHUDA SIVA SANKAR PRASAD

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 625 · Decided: 07-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

DEPOT MANAGER, A.P.S.R.T.C. 
A 
v. 
REGHUDA SIVA SANKAR PRASAD 
NOVEMBER 7, 2006 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
B 
Labour Laws-Charges of theft-Proved-Punishment of removal from 
service-Admission by the delinquent employee-Charge and punishment 
upheld by Industrial Tribunal-In Writ Petition and Writ Appeal finding C 
upheld, but punishment held to be not in consonance with the gravity of 
charges and hence direction for reinstatement-On appeal, held: The 
punishment is just, reasonable and proportionate to the proved misconduct-
Order of reinstatement by the High Court was contrary to law. 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226-Jurisdiction under-scope D 
of-It is not open to the court to substitute its subjective opinion in place 
of the one arrived at by the domestic Tribunal-There is no place for 
generosity or sympathy on the part of judicial forums for interfering with 
quantum of punishment-High Court can modify the punishment only when 
the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate to the charges proved. 
E 
Respondent-employee was given chargesheet by appellant-employer 
framing charges of theft of the property of the Corporation on four occasions. 
Respondent had categorically admitted that he had stolen the property of the 
employer-Corporation. In domestic enquiry he was found guilty of all the 
charges. Based on the report of enquiry he was punished with removal from 
the services. Respondent raised an Industrial dispute. Industrial Tribunal F 
found that the charges were correctly proved and punishment of removal was 
justified. Jn Writ Petition Single Judge of High Court held that charges were 
correctly proved. However, it held that punishment was not in consonance with 
the gravity of the charges, and hence directed his reinstatement with continuity 
of service. Writ appeal against the order of Single Judge was dismissed by G 
Division Bench of High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. High Court has failed to appreciate that the delinquent 
625 
II 
626 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A employee categorically admitted that he had stolen the property of the 
Corporation. The Labour Court, on a careful perusal of the evidence, rightly 
ordered removal of the respondent from service. When the delinquent 
employee admitted his guilt before the Enquiry Officer that he had handed 
over the alternator from pan shop to the police authorities and further deposed 
B that he had handed over the stolen property and requested the Labour Court 
to excuse him since it was his first offence. The Tribunal rightly set aside 
the request by taking into consideration the entire factual circumstances on 
record and after careful examination of the same and held that the delinquent 
employee does not deserve any sympathy and therefore he ordered removal 
from service. High Court also failed to appreciate the statement given by the 
C delinquent employee admitting the guilt and ordered reinstatement, continuity 
of service but without back wages. [629-D-E; 630-E-G J 
1.2. The enquiry reports also clearly reveal that the departmenta~ 
enquiry was conducted after giving fair and reasonable opportunity to the 
delinquent official, after following the procedure and as per the regulations. 
D Past conduct of workman is not relevant in departmental proceedings. 
Likewise, Single Judge has erred in holding that the workman did not involve 
in any misconduct of theft during his past services and on that ground, granted 
reinstatement with continuity of service. (631-B-D) 
1.3. High Court also failed to appreciate that once an employee lost the 
E confidence of employer, it would not be safe and in the interest of the 
Corporation to continue the e:nployee in the service. The punishment, 
imposed by the management in the facts and circumstances of the case, is not 
disproportionate and that the punishment of removal from service is just and 
reasonable and proportionate to the proved misconduct. [631-D-E) 
F 
1.4. Interfering with the quantum of punishment of the respondent 
herein, is not called for. The respondent has no legal right to continue in the 
Corporation. Loss of confidence occupies the primary factor and not the 
amount of money and that sympathy and generosity cannot be a factor which 
is permissible in law in such matters. When the employee is found guilty of 
G theft, there is nothing wrong in the Corporation losing confidence or fai

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.