LexU.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus MUNIRUDDIN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
. .).- -----..;.- U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION A V. MUNIR UDDIN AUGUST 17, 1990 [M.H. KANIA AND K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, JJ.] B Service Law: Disciplinary Enquiry-Non-supply of carbon copies of important documents-Whether prejudice caused to. the employee-High Court setting aside concurrent findings of courts below- Whether justified-Lump sum compensation towards backwa- ges awarded instead of driving parties to go through indefinite execution proceedings-Relief under Section 89 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for spreading to be given. The respondent, a bus-conductor in the appellant-State Road Transport Corporation, was dismissed on the charge that he had erased the way-bills and resold some already sold tickets. He filed a suit challenging the dismissal order on the ground that carbon ·copies of certain important documents were not made available to him during tht! enquiry and this had caused serious prejudice to him. The trial court dismissed the suit and the first appellate court also dismissed his appeal. However, the High Court allowed his second appeal, and held that the important documents had been purposely withheld, which had resulted prejudice to the employee. c D E The appellant-Corporation file.d a Special Leave Petition before this Court, contending that the High Court had grossly erred in in- terfering in second appeal with the concurrent findings, and that the failure to produce the carbon copies of some of the documents did not F cause any prejudice and, at any rate, it was a question of fact • . Disposing of the appeal, by special leave, this Court, HELD: I. The High Court has not committed any error which warrants interference. (780E] G The respondent's plea has been tb~t from the carbon copies he would have shown that he could not have carried on the erasures or made false entries and, therefore~ non-st·pply of these carbon copies had caused great prejudice to him. However, the trial court and the first appellate court held that no prejudice was caused since be was H 777 778 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1990) 3 S.C.R. shown the originals. The High Court no doubt has considered this aspect A in detail and in doing so referred to the contents of various documents. From this alone it cannot be said that the High Court has not kept in view the scope of second appeal. [779G·H; 780A·B] Since the employee has been throughout pleading that he did not B make the erasures or any other false entry, it naturally became neces- sary to see whether they were also found in carbon copies. Therefore, the High Court considered the various figures and entries in the origi- nals iil which such erasures were alleged to have been made by the employee and eventually observed that the entire enquiry was based on some of these documents, and if a carbon copy of the documents had been shown, the authority may well have been convinced that the C charge levelled against him was not correct, and that, therefore, the non-supply of these documents bad caused prejudice. [780D-EJ 2. The litigation is going on for the last 25 years and the respon- dent has already reached the age of superannuation. Hence the parties D need not be driven to go through the indefinite execution proceedings again for backwages and allowances and ends of justice require that a lump sum compensation should be granted. Accordingly, a lump sum amount of Rs.35,000 is awarded and the amount should be paid to the respondent without deducting the income tax. The respondent may make an application under Section 89 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 E for sp1eadhlg'ova- this amount, and the concerned Income Tax Officer should also give the~ relief without any further enquiry. [780F; 781C·E) F 0 Sohan Singh v. Union of India & Anr., (1984) 1 SCC 162 and Sundaram Motors Pvt. Ltd. v. Ameerjan & Anr., [1985] l SCC 118, relied on. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3169 of 1981. From the Judgment and Order dated 7.5.1981 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No. 1018of1974. Jagan Mohan Rao and R. Ramachandran (N.P.) for the Appellant. Subodh Markandeya, Mrs. Chitra Markandeya, W.A. Nomani and G .S. Giri for the Respondent. ._;~ , , ..... -'. TPT: CORPN. v. MUNIRUDDIN (REDDY, J.] 779 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J. This is a case where an order · of dismissal passed in a departmental enquiry was challenged in civil court and ultimately h
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.