LexU.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus SURESH CHAND SHARMA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010) 7 S.C.R. 239 U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. SURESH CHAND SHARMA (Civil Appeal No. 3086 of 2007) MAY 26, 2010 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] Service Law: A B Misconduct - Misappropriation of public money - c Appropriate punishment - Conductor in State Road Transport Corporation recovering travelling fare from passengers but not issuing tickets to them - Misappropriating the recovered fare i.e. public money - Conductor terminated from service - Punishment of termination challenged as being D dispr_oportionate on the ground that the amount misappropriated ~as petty - Held: The challenge is not tenable - Amount misappropriated may be small or large; it is the mens rea to misappropriate the public money that is relevant - In cases of corruption! misappropriation, the only E punishment is dismissal - Any sympathy in such cases would be opposed to public interest. Termination - On ground of misconduct - Labour Court declined relief to the employee - Writ petition - High Court directed re-instatement - Justification of - Held: Not justified F - The High Court dealt with the matter in a most cryptic manner - Did not give cogent reasons while reversing the order of Labour Court - Judgment/Order - Obligation of the Court to record reasons for the order made - Administration of Justice. G Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against a Bus Conductor in State Road transport Corporation on the allegation that he recovered fare from travelling 239 H .. 240 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 7 S.C.R. A passengers, but did not issue tickets to them, and thus misappropriated the fare recovered from the passengers. The charges were found proved by the Disciplinary Authority and consequently, the Conductor was terminated from service. He raised an industrial dispute. . . 8 c D ' The Labciur Court decrined to give any relief to the Conductor on which he filed writ petition. The High Court directed re-instatement of the Conductor, but without back wages. In the present cross-appeals, the Corporation contended that the High Court had mis-directed itself as it did not give any cogent reason for setting aside the well-reasoned Award pf the Labour Court. Per contra, the Conductor submitted that there was no justification for imposing the punishment of dismissal and once the Award of the Labour Court was set aside, the Conductor was entitled to full back wages. Allowing the appeal of the Corporation and E dismissing that of the Conductor, the Court HELD:1.1. The Labour Court considered the matter at length and came to the conclusion that enquiry had been conducted strictly in accordance with law. There F has been no violation of the principles of natural justice or any other statutory provision. The employee (Conductor) was given full opportunity to defend himself, he cross examined the witnesses examined by the Corporation. The Enquiry Officer has rightly appreciated G the evidence and found the charges proved. The Disciplinary Authority has taken a right decision accepting the enquiry report and punishment order was passed after serving second show cause to the employee. [Para 9) [246-G-H; 247-A] H U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. 241 SURESH CHAND SHARMA 1.2. The Labour Court recorded a finding of .fact that A , the passengers were found travelling without tickets and they had already paid fare to the employee/Conductor. Thus, it is not a case where the said employee could not issue the ticket -ind recover the fare from the travelling · passengers, ratiler the finding has been recorded that B after recovering the fare from the passengers, he did not issue tickets to them. Thus, there was an intention to mis- appropriate the fare recovered from the passengers who were found travelling without tickets. [Para 10] [247-E-F] 2.1. The High Court dealt with the matter in a most C cryptic manner. It decided the Writ Petition only on the ground that the passengers found without tickets, had not been examined and the cash with the employee was not checked. The reasoning so given by the High Court cannot be sustained in the eye of law. No other reasoning D has been given whatsoever by the High Court. [Paras 11, 12 and 14] [247-G; 248-C-D; 249-A-B] 2.2. Moreso, the High Cou'rt is under an obligation to give not only the reasons but cogent reasons while reversing the findings of fact recorded by a domestic tribuna
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.