SOUTH BENGAL STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus ASHOK KUMAR GHOSH AND ORS.

Citation: [2010] 6 S.C.R. 176 · Decided: 06-05-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2010) 6 S.C.R. 176 
SOUTH BENGAL STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION 
v. 
ASHOK KUMAR GHOSH AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4338 of 2010) 
MAY 6, 2010 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN, R.M. LODHA AND 
C.K. PRASAD, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Misconduct - Penalty - South Bengal State Transport 
Corporation Service Regulations - Regulations 36 and 38 -
State Transport Corporation - Charges of misconduct against 
respondent Conductor - Findings against him by Disciplinary 
0 authority - Respondent relegated to status of Daily Rated 
Conductor- He challenged the action - Plea of bias- Further 
plea that the punishment imposed was not provided for in the 
Regulations - Held: Mere appointment of Enquiry Officer, 
while framing the charge sheet, before considering the reply 
E of respondent, did not reflect any bias - However, punishment 
imposed, not being one of the punishments enumerated in 
Regulation 36, not permissible in law -
Reinstatement 
directed on technical ground, hence, without back wages -
Punishment modified to penalty of reduction to lowest stage 
in time scale of pay applicable to Conductors. 
F 
Reversion - Held: An employee cannot be reverted to a 
post lower than the post in which he entered service. 
Reversion - Held: Reversion to a post outside the cadre 
G i.e. from regular post :o a daily wage post, is not permitted. 
H 
Respondent no.1 was a conductor in the appellant 
transport corporation. Disciplinary proceedings were 
initiated against him for allowing a ticketless passenger 
176 
SOUTH BENGAL STATE TRANSPORT CORPN. v. 
177 
ASHOK KUMAR GHOSH 
to travel in the bus and for possessing excess amount 
A 
in his cash bag. The disciplinary authority found the 
charges proved and inflicted the punishment of 
relegating respondent no.1 to the status of a Daily Rated 
Conductor. 
Respondent no.1 filed writ petition before the High 
Court contending that appointment of the Enquiry Officer 
B 
in the charge sheet itself reflected bias on the part of the 
authority and this itself vitiated the punishment. The High 
Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of C 
punishment holding that initiation of disciplinary 
proceedings was not free from bias inasmuch as the 
Enquiry Officer was appointed without considering the 
reply submitted by respondent no.1 and the punishment 
inflicted was in violation of Regulation 38(2) of the South 
Bengal State Transport Corporation Service Regulations. 
D 
Hence the present appeal. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Regulation 38 of the South Bengal State 
E 
Transport Corporation Service Regulations, inter alia, 
provides the procedure for imposing penalties. From a 
plain reading of Regulation 38(2), it is evident that the 
disciplinary authority is required to draw or cause to be 
drawn up, the substance of imputation of misconduct into 
definite and distinct articles of charges and the statement 
F 
of imputation of misconduct, to contain the statement of 
relevant facts including any admission or confession 
made by the employee. It also requires drawing up a list 
of documents by which and a list of witnesses by whom . 
the articles of charges are proposed to be sustained. , G 
Regulation 38(3) of the Regulations obliges the 
disciplinary authority to deliver or cause to be delivered 
to the employee the articles of charges and the statement 
of imputation of misconduct requiring the employee to 
submit to the Enquiry Officer written statement of defence 
H 
178 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010) 6 S.C.R. 
A within a period specified. Neither Regulation 38(2) nor 
Regulation 38(3) provides that before the appointment of 
the Enquiry Officer the reply of the delinquent employee 
is to be considered. [Para 11) [185-G-H; 186-A-C) 
8 
1.2. It may be open for a disciplinary authority to 
initiate the departmental proceedings on consideration of 
the reply of an employee but as an absolute proposition 
of law it cannot be said that before initiating departmental 
enquiry or appointing Enquiry Officer, reply of the 
delinquent employee is required to be obtained and 
C considered unless it is the requirement of the rules. There 
may be cases where the charges are of such a nature 
that the disciplinary authority may not require any reply 
from the delinquent employee but straightway initiates the 
departmental enquiry and appoint an Enquiry Officer. In 
D the present case, the Bus was checked by the flying 
squad of the appellant-Corporation itself and in view of 
what has

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