U.P.S.R.T.C versus RAM KISHAN ARORA

Citation: [2007] 6 S.C.R. 205 · Decided: 09-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

U.P.S.RT.C 
A 
v. 
RAM KISHAN ARORA 
MAY09, 2007 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
B 
Labour Laws-Dismissal from service-By Disciplinary Authority-On 
charge of criminal breach of trust-Industrial dispute-Labour court directing 
reinstatement of workman with full back wages-In Writ Jurisdiction, C 
punishment of dismissal reduced to stoppage of two increments by High 
Court-On appeal, held : Punishment of dismissal appropriate, in view of 
serious nature of misconduct-High Court not right in reducing the 
punishment in exercise of writ jurisdiction, without assigning any reason--
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226-Writ Jurisdiction. 
D 
Respondent was employed as a conductor with the appellant-Corporation. 
While the respondent was on duty on a bus, the bus was checked by an 
inspection team. Respondent obstructed the checking process and also 
misbehaved with the authorities. Charges were issued against him. The same 
were proved in the departmental proceedings. Appointing authority removed 
him from service. Departmental appeal thereagainst was also dismissed. E 
Respondent raised industrial dispute. Labour Court directed his reinstatement 
with full back wages. Writ Petition by the employer was partly allowed 
directing his reintstatement with stoppage of two increments with cumulative 
effect. Back wages were denied. Hence the present appeal by the Corporation. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD: 1. The punishment of removal imposed by the disciplinary 
authority is correct. The commission of a criminal breach of trust by a person 
holding a position of trust is a misconduct of serious nature. The charges 
levelled against the respondent having been proved, the High Court in exercise G 
of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was not at all 
justified in reducing the punishment and imposing the punishment of stoppage 
of two increments only. [Paras 11and6) (21!)-B; 208-8, C) 
2. The High Court has not arrived at the conclusion that the quantum 
205 
H 
206 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 6 S.C.R. 
A of punishment imposed upon the respondent was disproportionate to the gravity 
--( 
of his misconduct Even in such a situation, the course which would have been 
ordinarily open to the High Court was to remit the matter to the employer for 
reconsideration of the question in regard to the quantum of punishment The 
High Court without assigning any reason could not have substituted its opinion 
B to that of the Disciplinary Authority. [Para 7] (208-C, Df 
c 
D 
Anand Regional Coop. Oil Seedsgrowers' Union Ltd. v. Shaileshkumar 
Harshadbhai Shai, (2006] 6 6 SCC 548; UP.State Road Transport 
Corporation, Dehradun v. Suresh Pal, (2006] 8 SCC 108 and Amrit Vanaspati 
/ 
Co. Ltd. v. Khem Chand and Anr., (2006] 6 SCC 325, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2410 of2007. 
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 05.08.2005 of the High Court 
ofUttaranchal at Nainital in Writ Petition No. 1169 of 200 I (M/S)(Old No. 1209 
of2000. 
Pradeep Misra for the Appellant. 
C.L. Sahu, Rishabh Sahu and Hema Sahu for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
E 
S.B. SINHA, J. I. Leave granted. 
2. Respondent was working with the appellant - Corporation constituted 
under the Road Transport Corporation Act as a conductor. He was discharging 
his duties in the said capacity in the bus bearing registration No. UP-078/2932 
F plying on Dehradun Bhukki route. The said bus was checked by an inspection 
team. 35 passengers were travelling in the said bus without any travelling 
ticket although the respondent allegedly had realised fare from them. He 
obstructed in the checking process by threatening and abusing the authorities. 
He even did not permit them to make any entry in the way bill. A report in 
regard to his misconduct was submitted whereupon a chargesheet was issued 
G on 4.04.1996. One Shri T.K. Vishen, Assistant Regional Manager, Dehradun 
was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer was transferred and 
in his place one Shri R.K. Gupta prepared the Enquiry Report. The charges 
of misconduct stood proved against him in the departmental proceedings. 
Upon issuance of a second show cause notice and upon consideration of the 
cause shown by him, the appointing authority came to the opinion that it will 
H 
• 
I_ 
U.P.S.R.T.C v. RAM KISHAN ARORA (S.B. SINHA, J.] 
207 
the interest of the Corporation to keep the respondent in service. He was,

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