RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. AND ANR. versus TILLA RAM

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 792 · Decided: 25-08-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. AND ANR. 
B 
V. 
TILLA RAM 
AUGUST 25, 2004 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.] 
Service Law-Termination Order-Trial Court analysing the factual 
position in law and upholding the termination order-Appellate Court 
holding termination order to be illegal and violative of principles of 
C natural justice and setting aside the termination order-High Court 
upholding the same-Correctness of-Held: First Appellate Court did not 
consider the matter in proper perspective-It did not indicate as to how 
decisions relied upon by the employer supported the case of employee-
Such unreasoned and palpably wrong conclusions cannot be supported in 
D law-High Court did not consider these aspects and treated conclusions 
of First Appellate Court as that of trial court which is highly improper way 
of dealing with the matter-Hence, matter remitted back to High Court. 
Respondent-employee was appointed as a Conductor with the 
State Road Transport Corporation. He committed some misconduct 
E and was terminated from service. Respondent filed suit for declaration 
that termination order was illegal. It was contended that he was 
appointed on permanent basis but no departmental proceedings nor 
inquiry was conducted and also pri~ciple of 'last come first go' was 
also not followed. Trial Court dismiss1Cd the suit holding that the 
F employee was appointed on daily wage basis as such there was no need 
of departmental inquiry. Respondent filed an appeal. First Appellate 
Court held the termination order to be illegal and violative of principles 
of natural justice and set aside the order of trial Court. Appellant-
Ccrporation filed second appeal. Single Judge of High Court dismissed 
G the same. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant contended that the approach of High Court is clearly 
erroneous; that the High Court proceeded on the basis as if trial court 
held that the inquiry against the respondent was not in accordance with 
the principles of natural justice and that the procedure of holding 
H enquiry was grossly violative; and that the Appellate Court had held 
792 
RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TPT. CORPN. v. TILLA RAM [PASAY AT, J.] 
793 
that the inquiry was not in accordance with the principles of A 
natural justice and after referring to the conclusions of the First 
Appellate Court, High Court felt that decision given on merits is based 
on facts. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD : While the trial court had analysed the factual position 
in law in great detail and had arrived at the right conclusions, the First 
Appellate Court did not consider the matter in the proper perspective. 
Some of its conclusions are clearly untenable. It referred to some 
judgments referred to by the Corporation and decided in favour of the C 
employee but did not indicate as to how decisions relied upon by the 
Corporation supported the case of the plaintiff-employee. What was 
the ratio in those cases and how they were applicable and helpful to 
the employee's case has also not been indicated. Such unreasoned and 
palpably wrong conclusions cannot be supported in law. Unfortunately, D 
High Court did not consider these aspects. It treated the conclusions 
of the First Appellate Court to be that of the trial court which was 
certainly a very highly improper way of dealing with the matter. 
Therefore, the matter is remitted to High Court to decide in accordance 
with law. (795-C-D; 796-C-E] 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4032 of 
2001. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.10.1999 of the Rajasthan F 
High Court in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 499 of 1999. 
A.P. Dhamija, H.D. Thanvi, Sarad Singhariia and Sushi! Kr. Jain, for 
the Appellant 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G 
ARJIT PASAYA T, J.: Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation 
(hereinafter referred to as 'Corporation') calls in question legality of the 
judgment rendered by learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court 
dismissing the second appeal filed by the Corporation. 
H 
794 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Background facts necessary for disposal of the appeal in a nutshell 
are as follows : 
The Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'employee') filed a 
civil suit in the Court of the learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division 
B and Judicial Magistrate III, Jaipur City, Jaipur. Suit was for declaration that 
the order of termination dated 18.3.1986 passed by the cor

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