U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION. DEHRADUN versus SURESH PAL

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 534 · Decided: 22-09-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.P. MATHUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION. DEHRADUN 
v 
SURESH PAL 
B 
SEPTEMBER 22, 2:J06 
[G.P. MATHUR AND A.K. MATHUR, JJ.) 
Labour laws: 
c 
Dismissal ordered by Labour Court for misappropriation of funds in the 
first year of service-High Court confirmed finding of Labour Court, but took 
lenient view and substituted lighter punishment-Correctness of--Held: Not 
correct-Courts not to interfere unless punishment is shockingly 
disproportionate--lf such persons are lei off by substituting lighter punishment 
D then it will give wrong signal to the society-Constitution of India, 1950-
Article 226. 
The respondent was appointed as a Conductor on 24.7.1988. While he 
was carrying the bus of State Corporation on 28.7.1989, the bus wus suddenly 
E checked and it was found that twenty passengers were travelling without 
ticket. Charge sheet was served on him for misconduct and after holding a 
domestic enquiry, he was dismissed from service. He raised an industrial 
dispute. The Labour Court after considering the domestic enquiry found the 
charges proved against the respondent and upheld the dismissal. 
F 
The respondent tiled writ petition before the High Court. The Single 
Judge though confirmed the findings of Labour Court against the delinquent 
but reduced the punishment from dismissal to that of punishment of one 
censure entry and stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. Hence 
present appeal b)' the Corporation. 
G 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
H 
HELD: I. The petitioner was a conductor and holding the position of 
trust. If incumbent like the petitioner starts misappropriating the money by 
not issuing ticket and pocketing the money, thereby causing loss to the 
534 
U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORTCORPN, DEHRADUN r.SURESH PAL 
535 
Corporation then this is a serious misconduct. It is unfortunate that the A 
petitioner was appointed in 1988 and in the first year of service he started 
indulging in mal practice. If such persons are allowed to be let off with light 
punishment then this will be a wrong signal to the other persons similarly 
situated. Therefore, the incumbent should be weeded out as fast as possible. 
Such instances should not be dealt with lightly so as to pollute the atmosphere B 
in the Corporation and other co-workers.1537-C-El 
2. Normally, courts do not substitute the punishment unless they are 
shockingly disproportionate and if the punishment is interfered or substituted 
lightly in exercise of their extra ordinary jurisdiction then it will amount to 
abuse of the process of court. If such kind.of misconduct is dealt with lightly C 
and courts start substituting the lighter punishment in exercising the 
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution then it will give a wrong 
signal in the Society. All the State Road Transport Corporations in the country 
have gone in red because of the misconduct of such kind of incumbents and 
therefore, it is the time that misconduct should be dealt with iron hands and 
notleniently. 1537-E-Gl 
D 
Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C. Etawah and Ors. v. Hoti Lal and Anr., 
120031 3 sec 605, relied on. 
3. The petitioner has been found squarely guilty of misconduct of not 
issuing tickets to the passengers as found in the domestic enquiry. The High E 
Court also found that the inquiry is correct and the petitioner has been rightly 
found to be guilty but has substituted a lighter punishment Such a view cannot 
upheld and there is no reason worth the name to award lighter punishment. 
[538-GI 
U.P.S.R. T.C. and Ors. v. Mahesh Kumar Mishra and Anr., [2000) 3 SCC F . 
450, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4238 of2006. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.7.2005 of the High Court of 
Uttaranchal at Nainital in Writ Petition No. 729(M/S) of2001 (Old No. 16282/ G 
1996. 
T. Mahipal (for Pradeep Misra) for the Appellant. 
Anagha S. Desai (for Venkasteswara Rao Anumolu) for the Respondent. H 
536 
SUPREME COllRT REPORTS [2006] SL!PP. 6 S.C.R. 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was deliven:d by 
A.K. MATHUR, J. Leave granted. 
This appeal is directed against an order passed by the learned Single 
Judge of the Uttaranchal High Court at Nainital in Writ Petition No. 729(M/ 
B S) of2001 whereby learned Single Judge by order dated 28.7.2005 has confirmed 
the finding of the Tribunal holding the delinquent guilty of charges but the 
punishment of dismissal is not commensurate to the charges leveled against 
the respondent. The learned Single
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.