V. RAMANA versus A.P.S.R.T.C. AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 1149 · Decided: 05-09-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

V. RAMANA 
v. 
A.P.S.R.T.C. AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 5, 2005 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] 
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Conduct) 
Regulations, I 963-Appellant removed from service due to failure to perform 
duties as a conductor-High Court upheld removal from service-On appeal 
Held, scope of interference with quantum of punishment cannot be a routine 
n1atter-No interference with administrator's decision unless it was illogical 
or suffers fron1 procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of 
the, court-Scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision-
making process and not the decision-Industrial Disputes Act, I 947-Section 
A 
B 
c 
11~. 
D 
The appellant was.removed from service as he had failed to perform 
his duties as a conductor, while collecting and depositing the corr<ct fare. 
The said order was challenged by filing a writ petition in the High Court. 
The matter was referred to a larger Bench, which upheld the removal of E 
the petitioner. Hence this appeal. 
Appellant contended that the High Court ought to have considered 
the question of quantum of punishment by applying the principles of 
Section 11-A oflndustrial Disputes Act, 1947; and that there were minor 
lapses involving a small amount, which should have also been considered. 
Respondent contended that punishment of removal was proper as 
the petitioner was responsible to collect and deposit the correct fare as 
conductor; and that a person guilty of such breach of trust should he 
imposed punishment or removal from service. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. The scope of interference with quantum of punishment 
F 
G 
is well settled and such interference cannot be a routine matter. (1152-F] H 
1149 
1150 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Regional Manager, RSRTC v. Ghanshyam Sharma, [2002] 10 SCC 330, 
followed. 
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. B.S. Hullikatti, [2002) 
1SCR487; Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C. Etewha & Ors. v. Hoti Lal and 
B Anr., [2003) 3 sec 605; Om Kumar and Ors. v. Union of India, [2001) 2 sec 
386; Union of India and Anr. v. G. Ganayutham, [1997) 7 SCC 463 and B.C. 
Chaturvedi v. Union of India, [1995) 6 SCC 749, relied on. 
Wednesbury case (1948) 1 KB 223; Council for Civil Srvices Union v. 
C 
Minister of Civil Service, (1983) 1 AC 768, referred to. 
2. There should be no interference with the administrator's decision 
unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impopriety or was 
shocking to the conscience of the Court, in the sense that it was in defiance 
of logic or moral standards. The Court would not go into the correctness 
D of the choice made by the administrator open to him and it should not 
substitute its decision to that of the administrator. The scope of judicial 
review is limited to the deficiency in decision-making process and not the 
decison. [1159-G, HJ 
E 
Wednesbury case (1948) 1 KB 223, referred to. 
F 
3. Unless the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority or 
the Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of the Courtffribunal, 
there is no scope for interference. To shorten litigation it may, in exceptional 
and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons 
in support thereof. In a normal course if the punishment imposed was 
shockingly disproportionate it would be appropriate to direct the 
Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority to reconsider the penalty 
imposed. (1160-A, BJ 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9904 of2003. 
From the Judgment and Order datea 14.8.2001 of the Andhra Pradesh 
High Court in W.P. No. 4968 of 2000. 
H 
T.N. Rao and D. Mahesh Babu for the Appellant. 
... ' 
-
V. RAMANA v. A.P.S.R.T.C. [PASAYAT, J.] 
1151 
G. Ramakrishna Prasad, K.P. Kylashanatha Pillai and Mohd. Wasay A 
Khan for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. : Challenge in this appeal is to the legality of 
the judgment rendered by a Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court 
holding that the order of termination passed in the departmental proceedings 
against the appellant was justified. 
The factual background is essentially as follows: 
The appellant was working as a Conductor in the organization of the 
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. Charges were made 
against him which related to not issuing tickets at the boarding point itself 
to the passengers who were in the bus, failure to c

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