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

PETITIONER: U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MUNIRUDDIN

DATE OF JUDGMENT17/08/1990

BENCH: KANIA, M.H. BENCH: KANIA, M.H. REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J)

CITATION:  1990 SCR  (3) 777        1990 SCC  (4) 464  JT 1990 (3)   494        1990 SCALE  (2)250

ACT:     Service    Law:  Disciplinary   Enquiry--Non-supply   of carbon  copies  of  important  documents--Whether  prejudice caused to the employee--High Court setting aside  concurrent findings  of courts below--Whether justified--Lump sum  com- pensation  towards  back wages awarded  instead  of  driving parties     to    go    through     indefinite     execution proceedings--Relief under Section 89 of the Income Tax  Act, 1961 for spreading to be given.

HEADNOTE:     The  respondent, a bus-conductor in the  appellant-State Road Transport Corporation, was dismissed on the charge that he  had  erased the way-bills and resold some  already  sold tickets. He filed a suit challenging the dismissal order  on the ground that carbon copies of certain important documents were  not made available to him during the enquiry and  this had  caused serious prejudice to him. The trial  court  dis- missed the suit and the first appellate court also dismissed his  appeal.  However,  the High Court  allowed  his  second appeal,  and  held  that the important  documents  had  been purposely  withheld,  which had resulted  prejudice  to  the employee.     The appellant-Corporation filed a Special Leave Petition before this Court, contending that the High Court had gross- ly erred in interfering in second appeal with the concurrent findings, and that the failure to produce the carbon  copies of some of the documents did not cause any prejudice and. at any rate, it was a question of fact. Disposing of the appeal, by special leave, this Court,     HELD:  1.  The High Court has not  committed  any  error which warrants interference. 1780E]     The  respondent’s  plea has been that  from  the  carbon copies he would have shown that he could not have carried on the  erasures  or made false entries  and,  therefore;  non- supply of these carbon copies had caused great prejudice  to him. However, the trial court and the first appellate  court held that no prejudice was caused since he was 778 shown the originals. The High Court no doubt has  considered this  aspect in detail and in doing so referred to the  con- tents  of  various documents. From this alone it  cannot  be

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

said  that the High Court has not kept in view the scope  of second appeal. [779G-H; 780A-B]     Since the employee has been throughout pleading that  he did  not  make  the erasures or any other  false  entry,  it naturally  became  necessary to see whether they  were  also found in carbon copies. Therefore, the High Court considered the  various figures and entries in the originals  in  which such erasures were alleged to have been made by the employee and eventually observed that the entire enquiry was based on some  of these documents, and if a carbon copy of the  docu- ments  had  been  shown, the authority may  well  have  been convinced  that  the  charge levelled against  him  was  not correct, and that, therefore, the non-supply of these  docu- ments had caused prejudice. [780 D-E]     2. The litigation is going on for the last 25 years  and the  respondent has already reached the age  of  superannua- tion. Hence the parties need not be driven to go through the indefinite  execution  proceedings again for  backwages  and allowances  and  ends  of justice require that  a  lump  sum compensation  should  be granted. Accordingly,  a  lump  sum amount of Rs.35,000 is awarded and the amount should be paid to  the  respondent without deducting the  income  tax.  The respondent  may make an application under Section 89 of  the Income Tax Act, 1961 for spreading over this amount, and the concerned Income Tax Officers should also give the necessary relief without any further enquiry. [780F; 781C-E]     Sohan  Singh v. Union of India & Anr., [1984] 1 SCC  162 and  Sundaram Motors Pvt. Ltd. v. Ameerjan & Ant., [1985]  1 SCC 118, relied on.

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3 169  of 1981.     From the Judgment and Order dated 7.5.1981 of the  Alla- habad High Court in Second Appeal No. 1018 of 1974.     Jagan  Mohan  Rao  and R. Ramachandran  (N.P.)  for  the Appellant.     Subodh  Markandeya, Mrs. Chitra Markandeya, W.A.  Nomani and G.S. Giri for the Respondent. 779 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     K.  JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J. This is a case where an  order of dismissal passed in a departmental enquiry was challenged in  civil  court and ultimately has found its  way  to  this Court  after  a long litigation for over 16 years.  The  re- spondent  was a bus-conductor in U.P. State  Road  Transport Corporation  (Corporation’  for  short).  A  trap  was  laid against  him  and a disciplinary enquiry was  initiated  and dismissal  order was passed on 23rd March, 1965. He filed  a civil suit questioning the same. One of the main plea  taken by the respondent was that certain important documents  were not made available to him during the enquiry and this caused serious prejudice to him. The trial court dismissed the suit and  an  appeal preferred by him was also dismissed  by  the appellate court. Relentless as he was, he carried the matter to  the High Court by way of second appeal and his plea  was accepted  by  the High Court and the second appeal  was  al- lowed.  Aggrieved by the said judgment, the Corporation  has approached this Court.     On  behalf of the Corporation it is contended  that  the High  Court  has grossly erred in interfering  in  a  second appeal with the concurrent findings and that the plea of the respondent that relevant documents were not supplied to  him

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

during the enquiry has no substance.     One of the main issues framed before the trial court was whether  all  the way-bills, carbon copies  of  the  tickets issued on the said dates and carbon copy of checking  report were not shown to the delinquent employee by the investigat- ing  officer and if so what would be its effect? The  charge against  the respondent was that he erased the waybills  and resold  some  already sold tickets. During the  enquiry  the delinquent  employee was permitted to inspect the  documents but  he  intended to inspect the carbon copies  and  made  a request  by way of a letter. However, the carbon  copies  of the  way-bills dated 7th, 8th and 10th January,  1963  which are  the  relevant dates and carbon copies of  the  checking report  were  not shown to him. The plea of  the  delinquent employee has been that from the carbon copies he would  have shown that he could not have carried on such erasure or made false entries and non-supply of them had caused great preju- dice.  As already mentioned, the trial court as well as  the first appellate court did not accept this plea and held that no prejudice was caused inasmuch as he was shown the  origi- nals  and also on the ground that he did not later  insisted on  those carbon copies being shown to him. The High  Court, however,  in an elaborate judgment referred to  the  various documents 780 and it ultimately reached the conclusion that the  important documents  have  been purposely withheld which  resulted  in prejudice  to  the  employee. In this  appeal,  the  learned counsel for the Corporation contended that where failure  to produce  the carbon copies of some of the documents did  not cause any prejudice and that at any rate it is a question of fact,  the  High Court erred in interfering  in  the  second appeal.  To satisfy ourselves we wanted to peruse the  judg- ments  of the trial court as well as of the first  appellate court  but  the  Corporation has not placed a  copy  of  the appellate  court  judgment before us. We  have  perused  the trial court judgment and we find at more than one place that the  learned District Munsif has observed that the  employee could  have insisted on production of these  documents.  The High Court no doubt has considered this aspect in detail and in  doing  so has referred to the contents  of  the  various documents.  From this alone it cannot be said that the  High Court has not kept in view the scope of second appeal. Since the  employee has been throughout pleading that he  did  not make  the  erasures or any other false entry,  it  naturally became  necessary  to see whether they were  also  found  in carbon  copies. From this point of view the High Court  con- sidered the various figures and entries in the originals  in which  such  erasures and entries are alleged to  have  been made by the employee and eventually observed that the entire enquiry was based on some of these documents and if a carbon copy of the way-bills had been shown, the authority may well have been convinced that the charge levelled against him was not  correct,  and that, therefore the non-supply  of  these documents has caused prejudice. Having examined the findings arrived at by the High Court, we are unable to say that  the High Court has committed any error which warrants  interfer- ence under Article 136 of the Constitution.     The  High Court decreed the suit for  pendente-lite  and future  pay and allowances and this was passed on  7th  May, 1981.  It can therefore be seen that for the last  25  years this litigation went on i.e. from the date of dismissal till today. Admittedly the respondent has already reached the age of  superannuation  some years ago. During these  years  the respondent must have sought some employment or the other and

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

the  learned  counsel also could not seriously  dispute  the same.  Under  these circumstances the  question  is  whether again the parties should be driven to go through the indefi- nite execution proceedings. On the question of granting lump sum  amount  towards the backwages and allowances  till  the date of his retirement we have also heard both sides.  Under somewhat similar circumstances this Court in Sohan Singh  v. Union of India and Another, [1984] 1 SCC 162 granted lump 781 sum  amount  instead  of driving the parties to  go  to  the executing  court for further relief. That was a  case  where the  service of an airman in the Air Force was not  extended for  a  period of six years as per the  regulation  and  the matter  ultimately  came up before this Court.  Taking  into consideration  the facts and circumstances this  Court  held that the employee should be compensated by payment of a lump sum  amount in lieu of the benefits to which he  would  have been  otherwise entitled if he had continued in service  for the  extended  period of six years. Without going  into  the merits  of  the  actual claim this Court awarded  a  sum  of Rs.35,000 by way of compensation.     In the instant case also we are of the view that ends of justice require that such a relief should be granted. Taking into  consideration  all these aspects  including  that  the respondent  would  have been entitled  for  some  retirement benefit,  we award Rs.35,000 and direct the U.P. State  Road Transport  Corporation,  the appellant herein, to  pay  this amount to the respondent within two months from today. Since the amount would be received in lump sum by the  respondent, it may attract the levy of income tax. But since the  amount represents  the salary and allowances over the last so  many years  the respondent may make an application under  Section 89  of the Income Tax Act for spreading over this  lump  sum amount. We may also point out that in similar circumstances, this  Court,  in Sundaram Motors Pvt. Ltd. v.  Ameerjan  and Another,  [1985] 1 SCC 118 where the compensation by way  of lump  sum amount was awarded, observed that the same  should be spread over and gave a direction to the concerned  Income Tax Officer to give immediate relief under Section 89  with- out further enquiry.     Accordingly  We direct the Corporation to pay  the  lump sum amount of Rs.35,000 without deducting income tax.  Since the  respondent is entitled for relief under Section  89  of the  Income  Tax Act, he shall make an  application  to  the concerned  Income Tax Officer who shall give  the  necessary relief  without any further enquiry. The appeal is  disposed of accordingly. In the circumstances of the case there  will be no order as to costs. N.P.V.                                      Appeal  disposed of. 782