SUBHASH versus DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER M.S.R.T.C. AND ANR.

Citation: [2009] 14 S.C.R. 606 · Decided: 17-09-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2009) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 606 
SUBHASH 
V. 
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER M.S.R.T.C. AND ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6376 of 2009) 
SEPTty:MBER 17, 2009 
[TARUN CHATTekJEE AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] 
Labour- Dismissal - Damage to the bus due to rash and 
negligent driving of employee-driver - Dismissal from service 
C - First appellate authority set aside the dismissal order and 
directed fresh appointment without monetary benefit for past 
services - Challenged - Held: Negligence oh the part of 
· employee in driving the bus was established - However, first 
appellate authority set aside the dismissal order noticing that 
D no passenger was injured in the accident and the past record 
of the employee - The order of first appellate authority 
modified by ordering reinstatement with continuity of service 
- For delinquency on part of employee, denial of back wages,,._ . 
would be appropriate punishment. 
. .. 
..... 
E 
Appellant was employed as driver with the State 
Transport Corporation. While he was driving bus, it was 
alleged that. the bus ramped on the railing of the bridge 
due to rash and negligent driving and that resulted in 
.f< 
damage to the bus. He was accordingly dismissed from 
~ 
F service. First Appellate Authority set aside the order qf/~ ;, , . 
dismissal and directed his fresh appointment without any 
monetory benefits for the past services. Appellant joined 
his duties reserving his. right .to chalienge denial _of 
reinstatement with continuity of service and backwages'. 
G He filed appeal before second appellate authority 
challenging the order denying him reinstatement withr 
cdntinuity of service and backwages. It was dismissed. 
The Industrial· Court and High Court also did not interfere 
H 
606 
SUBHASH v. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER M.S.R.T.C. 607 
AND ANR. 
} with the order of first appellate court. Hence the appeal. 
A 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: It is not in dispute that there was negligence 
on the part of the appellant in driving the bus and as a 
result of which the bus ramped on the railing of the bridge 
B 
resulting in damage to the bus. Thus, the appellant's 
misconduct to that extent is amply established. As a 
J'!! matter of fact, there is no challenge to the said finding on 
behalf of the appellant. It also appears from the impugned 
order that during his service tenure of about 21 years, the 
C 
appellant was punished twice. However, the fact of the 
matter is that the First Appellate Authority, after noticing 
that in the accident none of the passengers was injured 
and considering the past record of the appellant held that 
.. it was appropriate to set aside the order of dismissal from . D 
service. He, accordingly, set aside the order of dismissal 
and ordered fresh appointment to the appellant but 
without giving any benefit for the past service. Looking 
to all relevant aspects and to render substantial justice, 
the order of the First Appellate Authority directing fresh 
E 
appointment of the appellant is modified. He is directed 
to be reinstated with continuity of service but without 
J>ack wages. This would be commensurate with the 
delinquency _of the appellant. In the interest of justice and 
~ fair play, denial of back wages for the entire period from 
F 
the date of dismissal until his rejoining the duties would 
be proper punishment. [Para 11] [609-G-H; 601-A-E] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
6376 of 2009. 
.. 
1 
From the Judgment & Order dated 15.10.2007 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Writ 
Pet\tion No. 1389 of 2006. 
G 
H 
608 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A 
Uday B. Dube and Kuldip Singh for the Appellant. 
. 
.., 
B 
R.S. Hegde, P.P. Singh and.Asha Gopalan Nair, (NP) for 
the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
R.M. LOOHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 
;:;I 
2. Whether the departmental appellate aut~ority was 
justified in ordering fresh appointment to the appellant while 
c setting aside the order of dismissal from service or it ought to 
~ 
have ordered reinstatement with continuity of. service and full 
back wages? This is the question that falls to be determined 
in this appeal by special leave. 
· 
·· 3. Subhash Kondiba Sontakke - the appellant - came to 
. D. be employed as driver in 1980 with Maharashtra State Road 
Transport Corporation (for short, 'Corporation'). He was made 
~ 
perman~ntin 1985. On September 28, 2000, the appellant was 
on duty on Beed-Dharur ro

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