http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  696 of 2006

PETITIONER: Uttaranchal Transport Corporation

RESPONDENT: Sanjay Kumar Nautiyal

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27/02/2008

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & D.K. JAIN

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

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 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 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  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 No.UP-15-9496. Duty of respondent included  booking of tickets and collecting money when the said bus  plied on its assigned route. The respondent was duty  bound to keep correct accounts by filling details of tickets  and making entry in the waybill sheet provided by the  appellant, thereby showing number of passengers  travelling, place of boarding and destination of  passengers.  

       On the same day i.e. 22.4.1996, surprise checking  was conducted by the personnel of appellant under the  supervision of Jamil Ahmad, Traffic Inspector with M.A.  Khan and Nandan Singh, Assistant Traffic Inspectors. The  bus was plying on the Saharanpur Haridwar route. On  checking by the above-mentioned persons it was found  that the respondent had not mentioned the destination  and boarding places of the passengers in the waybill. The  column pertaining to above-mentioned details was left  blank deliberately in order to mis-appropriate public  money. Further, the respondent had also manipulated the  entries and had entered wrong/lesser amounts charged  from the passengers. Tickets issued by the respondent  also did not clearly show the destination and boarding  places of the passengers and it was deliberately written in  the said manner, by the respondent in order to conceal  the correct information in case of any cross verification.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

Some tickets issued by the respondent did not show any  destination or boarding place, which was left blank  deliberately. The respondent had not issued tickets to  about half of the total passengers travelling on the bus  and had also charged money against the un-issued ticket,  from the passengers. Entry regarding the above- mentioned irregularities by the respondent had been  made by checking staff in the waybill. Therefore, it is  absolutely clear that respondent had mis-appropriated  the public money, and had deliberately made wrong  entries to such effect in the way bill.  

       Checking staff of the Corporation made the  complaint against respondent on the same day i.e.  22.4.1996. The conduct of respondent from the above- mentioned facts was treated to be grossly improper and  against the Service Rules as framed for the employees of  appellant. The conduct also amounts to mis-appropriation  of public money and cheating.  

       On receiving complaint from checking staff, Assistant  Regional Manager, Saharanpur issued directions to Senior  Station-in-charge, Saharanpur to give report after  examining the documents regarding the previous way bills  and ticket counter foils submitted by the respondent. On  examination of the way bills and ticket counter foils by  Senior Station-in-charge it was found that the respondent  attended duties only for four days in the relevant month  before the surprise checking was conducted. It was found  that on all occasions respondent had taken recourse to  similar tactics in filling up of passenger tickets and  waybills, as was found by checking staff on 22.4.1996.  Over writing in the tickets, destination and boarding place  of passenger not mentioned in the ticket, if it was  mentioned, the same was not clear or legible or readable.  There was no carbon impression found on backside of  ticket. In the waybill the amount of money has been  altered by over writing and deducted from the original.  Report was submitted to Assistant Regional Manager, U.P.  SRTC, Saharanpur on 9.7.1996.

       After receiving report Assistant Regional Manager,  Saharanpur forwarded the matter to Regional Manager,  Dehradun with recommendation of disciplinary enquiry  along with the above mentioned enquiry report. Regional  Manager, Dehradun after consideration of complaint  against the respondent by checking staff, report of Traffic  Inspector, recommendation of Assistant Regional  Manager, Saharanpur and seriousness as well as gravity  of the matter, initiated disciplinary proceedings against  the respondent. Charge sheet was served upon the  respondent and in total 13 charges were framed against  him on the basis of above mentioned records, by the  appellant.  

       The respondent filed reply to the charge sheet served  upon him by the appellant. Respondent could not explain  the irregularities committed and took the way of general  defence that the column in the waybill was left blank due  to the fact that large number of passengers were travelling  in the bus. The respondent further claimed that there was  no over-writing done by him on the waybill, and someone  else may have done it, in order to falsely implicate him.  The respondent refused to cross-examine the witness  produced by the appellant before the enquiry officer, Shiv

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

Ratan Kumar, Traffic Inspector. The witness who had  conducted enquiry proved the report before enquiry  officer. The respondent also failed to give clarification to  enquiry officer regarding blank columns in tickets and  carbon impression. Again he took the general defence that  it has been made by mistake. The enquiry report was  submitted to Regional Manager, Dehradun and in the  report it was found that charges proposed in the charge  sheet were proved against the respondent on the basis of  documents, oral statement and circumstances of the case.  The report was submitted to Regional Manager,  Dehradun.

       Regional Manager, Dehradun on perusal of enquiry  proceedings as well as report and evidence recorded by  enquiry officer (documentary as well as oral) proposed  termination of services of the respondent along with  forfeiture of salary pertaining to suspension period of the  respondent. Show cause notice to such effect was issued  to the respondent. Respondent replied to the show cause  notice and raised certain issues regarding the conduct of  disciplinary proceedings. However, Regional Manager,  Dehradun found the respondent guilty of gross  misconduct on duty as well as mis-appropriation of public  funds/ticket money and also for submitting tempered  waybills. Regional Manager, Dehradun dismissed  respondent from service and forfeited the salary for  suspension period.

       Appeal against the order of Regional Manager,  Dehradun before General Manager, Western Division,  UPSRTC, Meerut filed by respondent was dismissed.  Second appeal before Assistant Managing Director,  UPSRTC, Lucknow was also dismissed. Subsequently,  respondent filed Adjudication Case No.25 of 2000 before  the Labour Court, Dehradun, thereby challenging the  dismissal from service by the appellant. The Labour Court  vide order dated 31.7.2000 set aside the dismissal of  respondent by appellant. The punishment/penalty to  respondent was considered to be harsh in comparison to  the quantum of misconduct and it was reduced to  stoppage of two annual increments in salary without  future effect with forfeiture of 50% of the back salary.  

It is to be noted that the Labour Court had found the  respondent guilty of charges framed in the charge sheet.  Labour Court did not deem it proper to record oral  evidence of the parties and had only relied upon the  documentary evidence pertaining to the disciplinary  enquiry.

       Aggrieved by the above mentioned order of Labour  Court dated 31.7.2000 in Adjudication case No.25 of  2000, appellant filed Writ Petition before the High Court  of Uttaranchal at Nainital. The High Court dismissed the  Writ Petition of appellant on the ground that the   presumption that the punishment of removal/dismissal  from service was excessive and Labour Court was correct  in exercising powers provided under Section 6(2-A) of U.P.  Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ’Act’) by  setting aside the order of removal/dismissal.  

       Before the High Court primary stand of the appellant was  that in view of the proved mis-conduct of respondent the  punishment awarded was fully justified and the Labour Court

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

should not have interfered with the punishment.  The High  Court did not accept the stand. It noted that the amount  involved was meager and therefore the punishment awarded  was dis-proportionate. However, the High Court held that the  respondent shall not be paid any back wages but other  punishments awarded were maintained.  

       In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the  appellant submitted that the Labour Court and the High Court  had unnecessarily given consideration to the amount involved  without appreciating the fact that the conductor holds a post  of trust and therefore the punishment of removal from service  as awarded cannot be considered dis-proportionate.  

It is submitted that order of the High Court has been  passed without appreciating the fact that termination of  service is very appropriate to the seriousness of charges  levied against the respondent in view of fraud and  misappropriation of public money by the respondent  clearly proved by the surprise checking team as well. The  station in charge and the court below have also held  respondent to be guilty of fraud and mis-appropriation of  public money and the charges levied on respondent were  clearly proved after proper enquiry.

3.      In spite of service of notice the respondent has not  appeared.

4.      In V. Ramana v. A.P. SRTC and Ors. (2005 (7) SCC 338)  it was held as follows:

"4..In Karnataka State Road Transport  Corporation v. B.S. Hullikatti (JT 2001 (2) SC  72), it was held that 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  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 post of trust.  A person guilty of breach  of trust should be imposed punishment of  removal from service.  The factual position  shows that the appellant’s conduct in  collecting fare at the designated place and not  collecting fare from persons who had already  travelled were in violation of various  Regulations contained in The Andhra Pradesh  State Road Transport Corporation Employees  (Conduct) Regulations, 1963 (in short  ’Regulations’). In the Karnataka State Road  Transport case (supra) it was held that 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 issued  tickets of a lower denomination knowing fully  well the correct fare to be charged. It was  finally held that the order of dismissal should

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

not have been set aside. The view was  reiterated by a three Judge Bench in Regional  Manager, RSRTC v. Ghanshyam Sharma (2002  (1) LLJ 234), where it was additionally  observed that the proved acts amount either to  a case of dishonesty or of gross negligence,  and Bus Conductors who by their actions or  inactions cause financial loss to the  Corporations are not fit to be retained in  service.   

5.      The principle was reiterated in Regional  Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C. Etawha and Ors. v. Hoti  Lal and Anr. (JT 2003 (2) SC 27)       

5.      Above being the position, the Labour Court and the High  Court were not justified in holding that the punishment  awarded was dis-proportionate.  

6.      In view of the above, the order of the High Court is set  aside. The punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority  as upheld by the appellate authority stands restored.  

7.      The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.