U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ORS. versus MAHESH KUMAR MISHRA AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] 2 S.C.R. 439 · Decided: 15-03-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
MAHESH KUMAR MISHRA AND ORS. 
MARCH 15, 2000 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND D.P. W ADHW A, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Other Than Offic-
ers) Services Regulation, 1981 : 
Termination of service-Bus conductor-City bus-Some passengers 
found to have issued short distance tickets-Departmental inquiry-No passen-
ger examined nor statement of any one of them recorded by Traffic Inspector 
who checked the bus-Report by Traffic Inspector signed by delinquent-Order 
B 
c 
of dismissal passed-Order of High Court directing reinstatement of employee 
D 
with 25 per cent back wages upheld. 
Constitution of India, 1950 : 
Article 226-High Court's power to interfere with quantum of punish-
ment imposed on delinquent after disciplinary proceedings-Held, if penalty 
E 
imposed shocks conscience of Court, High Court can interfere with the punish-
ment inflicted upon delinquent. 
Respondent No. 1, a bus conductor, was found to have issued short 
distance tickets to 11 passengers in a city bus. A regular departmental 
inquiry was conducted under the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation 
Employees (Other Than Officers) Services Regulation, 1981, and ulti-
mately the services. of the respondent were terminated. The respondent 
after unsuccessfully challenging the order in the departmental appeal and 
before the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal, filed a writ petition before 
the High Court, which partly allowed the writ petition and directed rein-
statement of the respondent with 25 per cent back wages. Aggrieved, the 
Corporation filed the present appeal. 
It ~as contended for the appellant-Corporation that once the inquiry 
held against the respondent was found to be proper by Tribunal as also by 
the High Court, the quantum of punishment should not have been inter-
439 
F 
G 
H 
440 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
fered with by the High Court. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. Not only the Supreme Court but also the High Court can 
interfere with the punishment inflicted upon the delinquent employee after 
B 
disciplinary proceedings, if that penalty shocks the conscience of the Court. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
It cannot be said that the High Court can, in no circumstance, interfere 
with the quantum of punishment. [ 443-G, 444-F] 
B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India & Ors., [1995] 6 SCC 749 and 
Colour-Chem Ltd. v. A.L. Alaspurkar and Others, [1998) 3 SCC 192, relied 
on. 
1.2. In the instant case, the charge against the respondent was "not 
that the passengers were allowed to travel without ticket so that the 
amount of fare charged from the passengers could be pocketed by him. He 
had issued tickets to all the passengers. The dispute was only with regard 
to the spot or place at which they had boarded the bus, and that instead of 
charging a fare of Rs. 1.80 he had charged Rs. 1.50 from the passengers. 
This fact could have been established beyond doubt, if any of the· passen-
gers concerned was examined at the domestic inquiry, or their statements 
could have been recorded by the Transport Inspector, who checked the 
bus. This was not done, and reliance was placed only upon the report of 
the Transport Inspector which was signed by the respondent. It was a bus 
plied ·in the city itself and the passengers, being local, their statements 
could have been easily obtained. The U.P. State Public Services Tribunal 
overlooked this aspect. [442-C, 444-D] 
1.3. The order of the High Court, though extremely brief, must have 
been based on overall consideration of the facts of the case and it must 
have exercised its jurisdiction only when it was shocked to notice that 
though all the passengers had been issued tickets, the only dispute was 
with regard to the point at which they had boarded the bus for which the 
punishment of dismissal from service was highly disproportionate. [ 444-C] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2125 of 2000. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.2.1998 of the Allaha~ad High 
Court in C.M.W.P. No. 11506 of 1994. 
. .. 
U.P.S.R.T.C. v. M.K. MISHRA [S.S. AHMAD, J.] 
Pradeep Misra for, the Appellants. 
.Girdhar G. Upadhyay and R.D. Upadhyay for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S. SAGIR AI™AD, J. Leave granted. 
441 
Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent') was ap-
pointed on 28.5.1965 in the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation as 
Conductor on which

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