LexTHE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC versus M.G. VITTAL RAO
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1089 THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC v. M.G. VITTAL RAO (Civil Appeal No. 9933 of 2011) NOVEMBER 18, 2011 [DR. 8.5. CHAUHAN AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.] Labour laws: A B Dismissal from service - Theft committed by the c respondent-workman - Domestic enquiry found the workman guilty - Labour Court held that the enquiry was conducted strictly in accordance with law in a fair manner a.nd charges were rightly proved against the workman and imposed punishment of dismissal - Workman filed writ petition praying 0 that he stood acquitted in the criminal case and, therefore, he was entitled for all reliefs including re-instatement and back wages - Single Judge of High Court modified the order of the dismissal into an order of termination and directed the employer to pay the terminal benefits - Writ appeal by E workman - Division Bench of the High Court quashed the award of the Labour Court and held that the respondent was entitled to reinstatement into service with all consequential benefits - On appeal, held: The Single Judge as well as the Division Bench simply decided the case taking into consideration the acquittal of delinquent employee and F nothing else - There was no finding by the High Court that the charges leveled in the domestic enquiry had been the same which were in the criminal trial - Single Judge had granted relief to the respondent-workman which was not challenged by the employer by filing writ appeal - The · G workman shall be entitled only to the relief granted by the writ court and the judgment and order of the court in writ appeal is set aside. 1089 H 1090 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 14 (ADDL.} S.C.R. A Dismissal from service - Workman found guilty of theft and imposed punishment of dismissal - However in the criminal case he was acquitted of all the charges - Plea of reinstatement - Held: The question of considering reinstatement after the decision of acquittal or discharge by B a competent Criminal Court would arise only and only if the dismissal from services was based on conviction by the criminal court in view of the provisions of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India or analogous provisions in the statutory rules applicable in a case - In a case where enquiry c has been held independently of the criminal proceedings, acquittal in a criminal court is of no help - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 311(2)(b). I Misconduct - Theft - Loss of confidence - Plea of reinstatement - Held: Once the employe; has lost confidence D in the employee and the bona fide loss of confidence is affirmed, the order of punishment must be considered to be immune from challenge, for the reason that discharging the office of trust and confidence requires absolute integrity, and in a case of loss of confidence, reinstatement cannot be E directed - In case of theft, the quantum of theft is not important and what is important is the loss of confidence of employer in employee. Departmental proceedings vis-8-vis criminal proceedings - Standard of proof - Held: While in departmental F proceedings, the standard of 'proof is one of preponderance of probabilities, in a criminal case, the charge has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt - As the standard of proof in both the proceedings is quite different, and termination is not based on mere conviction of an G employee in a criminal case, the acquittal of the employee in criminal case cannot be the basis of taking away the effect of departmental proceedings - Nor can such an action of the · departmeat be termed as double jeopardy - Facts, charges and nature of evidence etc. involved in an individual case H would determine as to whether decision of acquittal would DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC v. M.G VITIAL 1091 RAO have any bearing on the findings recorded in the domestic A enquiry - Evidence. The case of the appellant-employer company was that the respondent-employee was caught red handed while he was committing theft from cash chest of the 8 appellant company. The Inquiry Officer found that charges against the respondent were proved. ·The Disciplinary Authority concurred with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer and imposed the punishment of dismissal of the respondent w.e.f. 14.2.1997. On reference, the Labour Court held that the C departmental enquiry was fair and proper and charges were rightly held to be proved against the respon
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.