REGIONAL MANAGER. U.P.S.R.T.C.. ETAWAH AND ORS. versus HOTI LAL AND ANR.

Citation: [2003] 1 S.C.R. 1019 · Decided: 11-02-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
'> 
REGIONAL MANAGER. U.P.S.R.T.C.. ETA WAH AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
HOT! LAL AND ANR. 
FEBRUARY 11. 2003 
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
B 
Service law: 
Termination of Service-Scope of Judicial Review to interfere with 
punishment-Held, the scope of interference is very limited and restricted to C 
exceptional cases-Court should record reasons as to why punishment does 
not commensurate with the proved charges-Failure to give reasons amounts 
to denial of justice, 
The services of the respondent, a bus conductor were terminated on D 
the ground of dereliction of duty, violation of Employee's Conduct Code 
and misappropriation of employers money by the act of not issuing tickets 
to passengers despite re«::overing money. In writ petition challenging the 
termination, High Court found the respondent employee guilty of the 
misconduct. On appeal Division Bench of the High Court set aside the 
order of termination holding that the punishment awarded was not E 
commensurate with the gravity of the charge. 
In appeal to this Court appellant-employer contended that High 
Court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the quantum of 
punishment. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD: Court or Tribunal while dealing with the quantum of 
punishment has to record reasons as to why it is felt that the punishment 
does not commensurate with the proved charges. The scope for 
interference is very limited and restricted to exceptional cases in the G 
indicated circumstances. In the present case as no reasons whatsoever have 
been indicated as to why the punishment was considered disproportionate. 
Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the 
• 
controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. Failure 
to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. A mere statement that it is H 
1019 
1020 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
f2003] I S.C.R. 
·A disproportionate would not suffice. It is not only the amount involved but 
the mental set up, the type of duty performed and similar relevant 
circumstances which go into the decision-making process while considering 
whether the punishment is proportionate or disproportionate. Lf the 
charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity 
B are inbuilt requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to deal with 
the matter leniently. Misconduct in such cases has to be dealt with iron 
hands. Where the person deals with public money or is engaged in financial 
transactions or acts in a fiduciary capacity, highest degree of integrity and 
trust-worthiness is must and unexceptionable. 11027-E-H; 1028-AI 
C 
SC. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Ors., 119951 6 SCC 749; Union 
of India anu· Anr. v. G. Ganayutham, (19971 7 SCC 463; Om.Kumar and Ors. 
v. Union of India, 12001 I 2 SCC 386; Karnataka State Road Trnasport 
Corporation v. B.S. Hul/ikatti, [20011 2 SCC 574 and Regional Manager 
RSRTC v. Ghanashyam Sharma, (2002) I LLJ 234, relied on. 
D 
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. v. Mahesh Kumar 
E 
Mishra and Ors., [2000) 3 SCC 450, distinguished. 
Alexandar Machinery Dudley Ltd. v. Crabtree, (1974) LCR 120, 
referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5984 of2000. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.12.1999 in SA 493/99 of the 
High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow Bench, Lucknow. 
F 
Pradeep Misra and A.S.G. for the Appellants. 
Sudhir Kulshreshtha for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G 
ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. In this appeal the only point raised by the U.P. 
State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the employer') 
is whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the quantum of 
punishment awarded to the respondent no.1-Hoti Lal (hereinafter referred to 
as 'the employee'). 
H 
The factual background in a nutshell is as follows: 
REGIONAL MANAGER. U.P.S.R T.C. ETA WAH v. HOT! LAL fPASA YAT. J.] J 02 J 
The employee was appointed as a Conductor on 1.6.1976. On 9. 7.1988 A 
he was on duty in Bus No.UGG-108. While checking was done by the Assistant 
.. 
·-)--
Regional Manager. it \vas found that 16 persons \Vere \Vithout ticket. Even 
after realising fare fro1n the passengers no ticket had been issued up to the 
ti1ne of checking. \\'hen the inspecting officer sta11ed checking. the e1nployee 
hurriedly tried to issue tickets. Old tickets were found in his possession \\
1ith B 
the intent to use the1n again. Several tickets of various denom
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.