UTTARANCHAL TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus SANJAY KUMAR NAUTIYAL

Citation: [2008] 3 S.C.R. 549 · Decided: 27-02-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
[2008] 3 S.C.R. 549 
'""""'· 
UTTARANCHAL TRANSPORT CORPORATION 
A 
v. 
SANJAY KUMAR NAUTIYAL 
(Civil Appeal No. 696 of 2006) 
FEBRUARY 27, 2008 
B 
y -f 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] 
Labour Laws: 
Dismissal - Gross misconduct - Breach of trust -
Dismissal of Respondent Bus Conductor for gross misconduct c 
in duty and misappropriation of public funds/ticket money -
Justification - Held: Justified - Respondent, who was acting 
in a fiduciary capacity, was guilty of breach of trust - Courts 
> 
""'\ 
below erred in holding the punishment imposed upon him to 
be disproportionate - UP Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 -
D 
s.2(1-A). 
Respondent was employed as a Bus Conductor in 
Appellant-Transport Corporation. On a surprise checking 
by the personnel of Appellant-Transport Corporation. E 
Respondent was found· guilty of gross misconduct in duty 
_ anci_ m_isappropriation of public funds/ticket money. 
x. 
Consequently Respondent was dismissed from service. 
.. 
The Labour Court, in exercise of powers under s.2(1-A) 
of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, set aside the 
dismissal of Respondent holding the punishment F 
imposed upon him to be harsh in comparison to the 
quantum of misconduct and directed his reinstatement 
with stoppage of two annual increments in salary without 
future effect and forfeiture of 50% backwages. Appellant 
filed writ petition. High Court held that the amount G 
. "' 
involved was meagre and therefore the punishment 
imposed upon Respondent was dis-proportionate, but he 
was not entitled to be paid any back-wages. 
549 
H 
A 
B 
550 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 3 S.C.R. 
The question which arose for consideration in the 
present appeal is whether inasmuch as Respondent 
Conductor held a post of trust, the punishment of his 
removal from service was not dis-proportionate. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: Misconduct in such cases where the bus 
conductor either had not issued tickets to a large number 
of passengers or had issued tickets of lower 
denomination, punishment of removal is proper. It is the 
c responsibility of the conductors to collect correct fare 
charges from the passengers and deposit the same with 
the Corporation. They act in fiduciary capacity and it would 
be a case of gross misconduct if they do not collect any 
fare or the correct amount of fare. A conductor holds a 
0 post of trust. A person guilty of breach of trust should be 
imposed punishment of removal from service. It is 
misplaced sympathy by Courts in awarding lesser 
punishments where on checking it is found that the Bus 
Conductors have either not issued tickets to a large 
number of passengers, though they should have, or have 
E Issued tickets of a lower denomination knowing fully well 
the correct fare to be charged. Bus Conductors who by 
their ·actions or inactions cause financial loss to tho 
Corporations are not fit to be retained in service. Above 
being the position, the Labour Court and the High Court 
F were not justified in holding that the punishment awarded 
was dis-proportionate. [Paras 4, 5] [556-A-G; 557-A] 
V Ramana v. A.P SRTC and Ors. (2005) 7 SCC 338 -
relied on. 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 696 
of 2006 
From the final Judgment and order dated 4/8/2005 of 
the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital in W.P. No. 251/2001 
H (S/S). 
• 
UTIARANCHAL TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. 
551 
" 
SANJAY KUMAR NAUTIYAL [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
~ 
B.N. Jha and Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, for the Appellant. 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. In this appeal, Uttaranchal 
Roadways Transport Corporation (in short the 'Corporation') 
calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a learned 8 
),. -t 
Single Judge of the Uttaranchal High Court partly allowing the 
writ petition filed by the appellant-Corporation. Before the High 
Court the Corporation had challenged the order passed by the 
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dehradun in Reference Case 
No.25 of 2000 whereby it had ordered that respondent shall be c 
re-instated into service with 50% back wages with minor 
punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative 
effect. 
2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 
. ~ 
Sanjay Kumar Nautiyal-respondent was employed as D 
conductor in the appellant-establishment and was posted at 
Saharanpur Depot at the relevant time. On 22.4.1996 
respondent was assigned duty of conductor in bus having 
registration N

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