U.P.S.R.T.C. versus MAHENDRA NATH TIWARI AND ANR.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 217 · Decided: 11-11-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RUMA PAL · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
U.P.S.R. T.C. 
v. 
MAHENDRA NATH TIWARI AND ANR. 
NOVEMBER 11, 2005 
[RUMA PAL AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN, JJ.] 
Service law: 
Disciplinary proceedings: 
Misconduct-Conductor found driving bus-Dismissal from service-
Justification of-Held: Conductor had no authority to drive the bus-This is 
a serious misconduct on his part justifying his dismissal as he endangered 
the public as well as property of his employer. 
A 
B 
c 
Breach of trust-Conductor found in possession of used tickets- D 
Passenger travelling in the bus but not issued tickets-Held: Amounts to 
breach of trust placed on conductor by the employer as he is duty bound to 
collect fare from every passenger on behalf of his employer. 
Misappropriation of funds-Used tickets found in possession of E 
conductor-The amount involved in offence of this nature does not have 
material bearing while considering whether there has been misconduct on 
the part of conductor. 
Respondent was employed as conductor by the appellant-Corporation. 
Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on the ground that he F 
was found driving the bus; that the lone passenger travelling in the bus was 
not issued a ticket and that he was found in possession of used tickets. The 
authority imposed the punishment of removal from service. Labour Court found 
that punishment was too severe and directed the reinstatement of respondent 
with continuity of service and all remaining dues but directed stoppage of his 
annual increment. Aggrieved Corporation moved High Court by way of Writ G 
Petition. High Court upheld the order of Labour Court on the ground that the 
embezzlement alleged against respondent was of a paltry sum of Rs. 1.50 only 
and that driver who had changed roles with the respondent as a conductor 
was responsible for not collecting the fare from the passenger and action 
217 
H 
218 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A ought to have been taken against him. Hence the present appeal, 
• 
I 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: t. The conduct of the respondent as a conductor was totally 
Irresponsible and clearly constituted misconduct on his part deserving the 
B maximum punishment. (221-CI 
2.1. When a conductor drives a bus for which he is not authorized, he 
is endangering the public as well as the property of his employer. This by 
itself is a serious misconduct justifying dismissal of a conductor. Similarly; 
the fact that one passenger was found travelling and had not been issued a 
C ticket for that journey, constitutes a grave charge against a conductor who is 
really in a position of trust as far as the employer-Corporation is concerned. 
He is duty bound to collect the fare from every passenger on behalf of his 
employer. Same is the position regarding the unexplain·ed twelve used tickets, 
found in his possession. That primafacie suggests that there is room to doubt 
the honesty of the respondent. He did not even try to explain the circumstances 
D in that regard. The charges are such that they show a betrayal of the trust 
placed on the conductor by the employer and that the employee endangered 
an asset of the corporation in addition to endangering the lives ofthe other 
users of the road. (221-0-E) 
2.2. It is a misconception to consider that the amount involved in an 
E offence of this nature has a material bearing, while considering whether there 
has been misconduct on the part of an employee. It may be relevant in a 
criminal prosecution when considering the quantum of punishment to be 
imposed. When a person like the conductor of a bus, who has the obligation 
to make proper collection of the charges from the passengers on issuing 
tickets to them, is found to have passengers in the bus, even if it be only one, 
F to whom he had not issued a ticket, it dearly amounts t~ a clear violation of 
the duty imposed ~n him. It is really a breach of the duty cast ori tlie conductor 
who is acting on behalf of the employer. Whether it be one passenger or ten 
passengers it would make' no difference in principle in the absence of any 
explanation in that behalt It was simply the case of a conductor who had violated 
G the Regulations or'the terms of his employment arid had betrayed his employer, 
which in any event, is a grave misconduct justifying a dismissal. 
(221-G, H; 222-A-B) 
CIVIL APP ELLA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6703 of 2005. 
H 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.10.2003 of the Allahabad High 
U.P.S.R.T.C. v. MAHENDRA

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