http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  2410 of 2007

PETITIONER: U.P.S.R.T.C.

RESPONDENT: Ram Kishan Arora

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/05/2007

BENCH: S.B. Sinha & Markandey Katju

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T  

CIVIL APPEAL NO.    2410              OF 2007 [Arising out of  SLP (Civil) No. 7322 of 2006]

S.B. SINHA, J :                  1.      Leave granted.

       2.      Respondent was working with the appellant \026 Corporation  constituted under the Road Transport Corporation Act as a conductor.  He  was discharging his duties in the said capacity in the bus bearing registration  No. UP-07B/2932 plying on Dehradun \026 Bhukki route.  The said bus was  checked by an inspection team.  35 passengers were travelling in the said  bus without any travelling ticket although the respondent allegedly had  realised fare from them.  He obstructed in the checking process by  threatening and abusing the authorities.  He even did not permit them to  make any entry in the way bill.  A report in regard to his misconduct was  submitted whereupon a chargesheet was issued on 4.04.1996.  One Shri T.K.  Vishen, Assistant Regional Manager, Dehradun was appointed as the  Enquiry Officer.  The Enquiry Officer was transferred and in his place one  Shri R.K. Gupta prepared the Enquiry Report.  The charges of misconduct  stood proved against him in the departmental proceedings.  Upon issuance of  a second show cause notice and upon consideration of the cause shown by  him, the appointing authority came to the opinion that it will not be in the  interest of the Corporation to keep the respondent in service.  He was,  therefore, removed from service by an order dated 7.11.1997.  A  departmental appeal preferred by the respondent thereagainst was also  dismissed.  He thereafter raised an industrial dispute.   

       3.      The Labour Court inter alia held that the finding of guilt arrived  at against the respondent in the departmental proceeding was perverse.  It  was further found that the Enquiry Officer Shri T.K. Vishen having been  transferred, Shri R.K. Gupta could not have submitted the Enquiry Report.   The Labour Court, therefore, directed reinstatement of the respondent with  full back wages.  A writ application questioning the correctness of the said  award was filed by the appellant herein wherein a learned Single Judge of  the Uttaranchal High Court held:

"6. I am not in full agreement with the findings  recorded by the learned Tribunal.  The Tribunal  ought not to have recorded the finding that there is  no evidence of record regarding the critical  behaviour against the officials.  Shri Damodar  Kala, the eyewitness produced by the employers,  who stated on oath that at the time of checking,  some wrangling between the workman and the  officials were going on.  The Respondent No. 3  had himself completed/ forged the details on the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

way bill.  Therefore, I find that there was some bad  intention on the part of Respondent No. 3.  The  critical behaviour of Respondent No. 3 was also  proved against the officials.

7. Therefore, in my opinion, in view of the facts  and circumstances of the case, I find some fault in  the behaviour of the Respondent No. 3.  The  critical behaviour of Respondent No. 3 against the  officials is shocking one.  Therefore, it is provided  that Respondent No. 2 shall be reinstated in service  with stoppage of two increments with cumulative  effect.  However, he shall not be entitled for any  back wages.

8. The writ petition is partly allowed.  The  Respondent No.2/ Workman shall be reinstated in  service with stoppage of two increments with  cumulative effect.  However, it is made clear that  he will not be entitled for any back wages."

       4.      The Appellant Corporation alone is before us in this appeal.   The respondent has not filed any appeal.

       5.      The respondent, having not questioned the finding arrived at by  the High Court, as noticed hereinbefore, that he was guilty of commission of  a serious misconduct, the only question which arises for consideration is as  to whether it was open to the High Court to substitute the punishment  awarded by the disciplinary authority.   

       6.      It is now well-settled that commission of a criminal breach of  trust by a person holding a position of trust is a misconduct of serious nature.   The charges levelled against the respondent having been proved, in our  opinion, the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of  the Constitution of India was not at all justified in reducing the punishment  and imposing the punishment of stoppage of two increments only.

       7.      The High Court has not arrived at the conclusion that the  quantum of punishment imposed upon the respondent was disproportionate  to the gravity of his misconduct.  Even in such a situation, the course which  would have been ordinarily open to the High Court was to remit the matter  to the employer for reconsideration of the question in regard to the quantum  of punishment.  The High Court without assigning any reason could not have  substituted its opinion to that of the disciplinary authority.

       8.      In Anand Regional Coop. Oil Seedsgrowers’ Union Ltd. v.  Shaileshkumar Harshadbhai Shai [(2006) 6 SCC 548], this Court opined: "The Labour Court although has jurisdiction to  consider the question in regard to the quantum of  punishment but it had a limited role to play.   It is now well settled that the industrial courts do  not interfere with the quantum of punishment  unless there exist sufficient reasons therefor."

       9.      In U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Dehradun v. Suresh  Pal [(2006) 8 SCC 108], this Court stated the law, thus: "Normally, the courts do not substitute the  punishment unless they are shockingly  disproportionate and if the punishment is interfered  or substituted lightly in the punishment in exercise  of their extraordinary jurisdiction then it will  amount to abuse of the process of court. If such  kind of misconduct is dealt with lightly and the  courts start substituting the lighter punishment in  exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

Constitution then it will give a wrong signal in the  society. All the State Road Transport Corporations  in the country have gone in red because of the  misconduct of such kind of incumbents, therefore,  it is time that misconduct should be dealt with an  iron hand and not leniently.   Learned counsel for the appellant invited our  attention to a decision of this Court in Regional  Manager, U.P. SRTC v. Hoti Lal wherein, this  Court has very categorically held that a mere  statement that it is disproportionate would not  suffice to substitute a lighter punishment. This  Court held as under: (SCC p.   606)  "The court or tribunal while dealing with the  quantum of punishment has to record reasons as to  why it is felt that the punishment was not  commensurate with the proved charges. The scope  for interference is very limited and restricted to  exceptional cases. In the impugned order of the  High Court no reasons whatsoever have been  indicated as to why the punishment was considered  disproportionate. Failure to give reasons amounts  to denial of justice. A mere statement that it is  disproportionate would not suffice. It is not only  the amount involved but the mental set-up, the  type of duty performed and similar relevant  circumstances which go into the decision-making  process while considering whether the punishment  is proportionate or disproportionate. If the charged  employee holds a position of trust where honesty  and integrity are inbuilt requirements of  functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the  matter leniently. Misconduct in such cases has to  be dealt with iron hands. Where the person deals  with public money or is engaged in financial  transactions or acts in a fiduciary capacity, the  highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness is a  must and unexceptionable. Judged in that  background, conclusions of the Division Bench of  the High Court are not proper."  In view of the above observation made by this  Court there remains nothing more to be added."

       10.     In Amrit Vanaspati Co. Ltd. v. Khem Chand and Another  [(2006) 6 SCC 325], this Court held:  "\005In our opinion, the High Court while  exercising powers under writ jurisdiction cannot  deal with aspects like whether the quantum of  punishment meted out by the management to a  workman for a particular misconduct is sufficient  or not. This apart, the High Court while exercising  powers under the writ jurisdiction cannot interfere  with the factual findings of the Labour Court  which are based on appreciation of facts adduced  before it by leading evidence. In our opinion, the  High Court has gravely erred in holding that the  evidence of Respondent 1 was not considered by  the Labour Court and had returned the finding that  the evidence of Respondent 1 did not inspire any  confidence. We are of the opinion that the High  Court is not right in interfering with the well- considered order passed by the Labour Court  confirming the order of dismissal."

       11.     For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

be sustained.  It is set aside accordingly.  The award of the Labour Court is  also set aside and the punishment of removal imposed by the disciplinary  authority is upheld.  The appeal is allowed.  In the facts and circumstances  of this case, there shall be no order as to costs.