UTTARANCHAL ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. AND ORS. versus MANSARAM NAINWAL

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 168 · Decided: 28-07-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UTTARANCHAL ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. AND ORS. 
v. 
MANSARAM NAINWAL 
JULY 28, 2006 
B 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] 
Precedenls: 
Departmental praceedings as also prosecution in criminal court of a 
C bus driver involved in a bus accident-Found guilty in disciplinary inquiry 
and dismissed from service-Labour Court upheld dismissal-High Court 
placing reliance on a decision of Supreme Court, set aside dismissal order 
and directed reinstatement holding that delinquent was acquiued in criminal 
case-Held, reliance on a decision without looking into factual background of 
D the case is clearly impermissible-Postulates of precedent--Explained---As 
the High Court did not indicate as to how the case relied on hy it applied to 
the facts of the case, mailer remitted to it for consideration afresh. 
E 
Service law~Disciplinary inquiry-Dismissal from service-Acquittal 
in criminal case-Effect of 
Respondent. was a bus driver in the service of the appellant-
Corporation. His bus met with an accident. A disciplinary inquiry was 
initiated against him. The charges leveled against him were found to have 
been proved and he was dismissed from service. His departmental appeal 
was rejected. The Labour Court also found him guilty and held the 
F termination ordel" not unjustified. He challenged the award before High 
Court. A criminal case was also filed against the respondent wherein he 
was acquitted. The High Court, relying on the judgment of the Supreme 
Court in Anthony's case*, allowed the writ petition, set aside the 
termination order and directed reinstatement of the respondent holding 
G that he had been acquitted in the criminal case. 
H 
In the present appeal it was contended for the appellant-Corporation 
that the ratio in Anthony's case* was not applicable to the facts of the 
instant case; and that, even otherwise, acquittal in a criminal case would 
not lead to an automatic reinstatement nor would it render the 
168 
-
-
UlT ARANCHAL ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. ''·MAN SA RAM NAINWAL 
169 
departmental proceedings invalid. 
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to the High Court, the 
Court 
HELD: I. I. Reliance by a court on a decision without looking into 
A 
the factual background of the case before it is clearly impermissible. B 
According to the well-settled theory of precedents, every decision contains 
three basic postulates - (i) findings of material facts, direct and inferential; 
an inferential finding of fact is the inference which the Judge draws from 
the direct or perceptible facts; (ii) statements of the principles of law 
applicable to the legal problems disclosed by the facts; and (iii) judgment C 
based on the combined effect of the above. Enunciation of the reason or 
principle on which a question before a Court has been decided is alone 
binding as a precedent. (173-G; 174-A-CI 
State of Orissa v. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra and Ors., AIR (1968) SC 647 
and Union of India.and Ors. v. Dhanwanti Devi and Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 44, D 
relied on. 
1.2. The position in law relating to acquittal in a criminal case and 
question of re-instatement has been dealt with in Sidhana's case**. As the 
High Court did not deal with the factual scenario and as to how the 
Anthony's case* helped the respondent, it would consider the matter afresh. E 
(171-F; 174-E-FJ 
*Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Anr., [1999] 3 
SCC 679 and ** Union of India and Anr. v. Bihar Lal Sidhana, [1997) 4 
sec 385, referred to. 
Quinn v. Leathem, (1901) AC 495 (H.L.), referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 3179 of2006. 
F 
From the Judgment and Order and dated 9.8.2005 of the High Court of 
Uttaranchal at Nainital in Writ Petition No. 673 (M/S) of 2003 (Old No. G 
13150 of 1996. 
Pradeep Misra for the Appellants. 
A.S. Rawat and K.S. Rana for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
170 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (20061 SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted. 
Appellants call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a learned 
Single Judge of the Uttaranchal High Court. By the impugned judgment, the 
learned Single Judge set aside the order of termination passed by 2ppellant 
No.2 and directed re-instatement of the respondent in service with continuity 
B of service, but without back wages. 
Factual background needs to be noted in brief. 
The respondent was appointed as Driver in appellant No.1-U.P. State 
Road Transport Corporation (hereinaft
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.