LexRAJASTHAN STATE TPT CORPN. & ANR. versus BAJRANG LAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014} 3 S.C.R. 782 A RAJASTHAN STATE TPT CORPN. & ANR. v. BAJRANG LAL (Civil Appeal No. 4104 of 2007) B MARCH 14, 2014 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.) Service law: Termination from service - Embezzlement of money - Respondent-employee working as a trainee C conductor on daily basis found carrying passengers without tickets - Chargesheeted - Enquiry officer found charges proved against him - Disciplinary Authority passed order of punishment of removal from service - Suit challenging removal decreed accepting the allegation of employee that D in the inquiry the statement of the witnesses were not recorded in front of him; that he was not given an opportunity to cross- examine the witnesses produced by Corporation; that he was not supplied with the copies of the documents and was not heard on the quantum of the punishment - Corporation's E appeal dismissed by first appellate court and High Court - Held: The findings recorded by trial court was based only on the allegations made by the employee in the plaint and on account of non-rebuttal of same on part of Corporation, though the trial court had proceeded with the case clearly F observing that the burden of proving the issue was on the employee and not on the Corporation - There was no specific pleading as to what document relied upon by the enquiry officer was not supplied to employee or which witness was not permitted to be cross-examined by him - Also trial court did G not make any reference to enquiry report or contents thereof - The entire case was based on ipsi dixit - High Court in Second Appeal refused to examine the issue by merely observing that no substantial question of law was involved and the ljndings of fact, even though erroneous, cannot be H 782 RAJASTHAN STATE TPT CORPN. & ANR. v. 783 BAJRANG LAL disturbed in Second Appeal - The conclusion reached by A High Court was erroneous as Second Appeal, in exceptional circumstances, can be entertained on pure questions of fact - Regarding the question of punishment; in cases involving corruption, there cannot be any other punishment than dismissal - Any sympathy shown in such cases is totally B uncalled for and opposed to public interest - The amount misappropriated may be small or large; it is the act of misappropriation that is relevant - No interference called for with the order of dismissal. Pleadings: Held: A party has to plead the case and C produce/adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate his submissions made in the plaint and in case the pleadings are not complete, the Court is under no obligation to entertain the pleas. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: s. 100 - Held: There is no prohibition for the High Court to entertain the Second Appeal even on question of fact where factual findings are found to be perverse. Mis. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors. AIR 1998 SC 1608: 1998 (2) SCR 339; National Building Construction Corporation v. S. Raghunathan & Ors. AIR 1998 D E SC 2779: 1998 (1) Suppl. SCR 156; Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani & Ors. (1999) 1 SCC 141: 1998 (1) Suppl. SCR 188 ; Smt. Chitra Kumari v. Union of India & Ors. AIR 2001 F SC 1237; State of U.P. v. Chandra Prakash Pandey AIR 2001 SC 1298: 2001 (2) SCR 506; Mis. Atul Castings Ltd. v. Bawa Gurvachan Singh AIR 2001 SC 1684: 2001. (3) SCR 124; Vithal N. Shetti & Anr. v. Prakash N. Rudrakar & Ors. (2003) 1 SCC 18: 2002 (4) Suppl. SCR 284; Devasahayam (Dead) G by L.Rs. v. P. Savithramma & Ors. (2005) 7 SCC 653: 2005 ~ (3) Suppl. SCR 255; Sait Nagjee Purushotam & Co. Ltd. v. Vimalabai Prabhulal & Ors. (2005) 8 SCC 252: 2005 (3) Suppl. SCR 973; Rajasthan Pradesh V. S. Sardarshahar & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. AIR 2010 SC 2221: 2010 (7) H 784 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 3 S.C.R. A SCR 252; Ritesh Tiwari & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors. AIR 2010 SC 3823: 2010 (11) SCR 589; Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin & Anr. (2012) 8 SCC 148: 2012 (8) SCR 35; U.P State Road Transport Corporation v. Suresh Chand Sharma (2010) 6 sec 555: 201 o (7) SCR 239 - relied on. B The Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke of Bombay & Ors., AIR 1975 SC 2238: 1976 (1) SCR 427; Uttam Das Che/a Sunder Das v. Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar AIR 1996 SC 2133 1996 C (3) Suppl. SCR 5; Rajasthan SRTC & Ors. v. Mohar Singh AIR 2008 SC 2553: 2008 (6) SCR 890; Rajasthan SRTC & Anr. v. Bal Mukund Bairwa (2009) 4 SCC 299; Rajasthan S
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.