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

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  3179 of 2006

PETITIONER: Uttaranchal Road Transport Corpn.and Ors

RESPONDENT: Mansaram Nainwal

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/07/2006

BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising out of  SLP ( C ) No. 162 of  2006)

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

       Leave granted.   

       Appellants call in question legality of the judgment  rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Uttaranchal High  Court. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge  set aside the order of termination passed by appellant No.2  and directed re-instatement of the respondent in service with  continuity of service, but without back wages.

       Factual background needs to be noted in brief.  

       The respondent was appointed as Driver in appellant  No.1-U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter  referred to as the ’Corporation’). On 10.10.1990 while the  respondent was plying the bus No.UGA 938 on Mussoorie  road, all of a sudden the vehicle met with an accident and fell  into a ditch. Thereafter, a disciplinary enquiry was initiated  against the respondent in which the charges against the  respondent were found proved and the appellant vide its order  dated 31.3.1993 dismissed the respondent from service.   Thereafter, the respondent filed an appeal before appellant  No.2, which was rejected on 30.6.1993. Thereafter, the  respondent raised an industrial dispute under Section 4-K of  the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ’Act’). The  industrial dispute decided by the award was referred in the  following terms:-

"Whether the termination of the services of  applicant/workman Sri Mansaram Nainwal  s/o Visheshware Dutt Nainwal, driver by the  employers from 31.3.1993 is unjustified  and/or illegal? If so, to which  benefit/compensation the applicant/workman  is entitled and to what extent?"

The Labour Court issued notice to the parties. The  appellants and the respondent filed their written  statement/objection. The stand of appellants before the  Labour Court was that the respondent was appointed as a  Driver. On 10.10.1990 when he was plying the bus No. UGA

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

938 on Dehradun-Mussoorie Road, due to his rash and  negligent driving, the bus fell into the ditch in which 12  persons died and some other persons got seriously injured and  the bus was also got damaged as a result of which the  Corporation suffered a huge loss of Rs.2,50,000/-. It was also  pleaded that the respondent was charge sheeted and a  departmental enquiry was held against him in which full  opportunity of hearing was provided to the respondent. In the  enquiry, the charges against the respondent were found  proved and he was removed from the service.      On the other hand, the respondent in his written  statement accepted that he was served charge sheet and a  departmental enquiry was also held against him. But he  pleaded that the necessary documents were not being  produced though demand was made several times. The  Investigating Officer found him not guilty in the enquiry, even  though he was dismissed from service.   

Labour Court found the respondent guilty and held that  the termination was not unjustified.  

       Challenging the order of Labour Court, the respondent  filed a Writ Petition which, as noted above, was allowed by the  impugned judgment. The foundation of the High Court’s  judgment was to the effect that in the criminal trial the  respondent was acquitted and placing reliance on a decision of   this Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.  and Anr. (1999 (3) SCC 679) the order of termination was set  aside.  

       In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the  appellant submitted that the ratio in Anthony’s case (supra)  has no application to the facts of the present case. It has not  even been indicated as to how the factual position is similar.  In any event, acquittal in a criminal case does not lead to an  automatic re-instatement and also does not render the  departmental proceedings invalid. It was, therefore, submitted  that the High Court was clearly wrong  in its conclusion.  

       On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent  submitted that the departmental authorities in the enquiry  conducted against the respondent had clearly found that he  was not responsible for the accident and there was no  misconduct involved.   

The position in law relating to acquittal in a criminal  case, its effect on departmental proceedings and re- instatement in service has been dealt with by this Court in  Union of India and Anr. v. Bihari Lal Sidhana (1997 (4) SCC  385).  It was held in paragraph 5 as follows:

"5. It is true that the respondent was acquitted  by the criminal court but acquittal does not  automatically give him the right to be re- instated into the service. It would still be open  to the competent authority to take decision  whether the delinquent government servant  can be taken into service or disciplinary action  should be taken under the Central Civil  Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)  Rules or under the Temporary Service Rules.  Admittedly, the respondent had been working  as a temporary government servant before he  was kept under suspension. The termination

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

order indicated the factum that he, by then,  was under suspension. It is only a way of  describing him as being under suspension  when the order came to be passed but that  does not constitute any stigma. Mere acquittal  of government employee does not  automatically entitle the government servant  to reinstatement. As stated earlier, it would be  open to the appropriate competent authority to  take a decision whether the enquiry into the  conduct is required to be done before directing  reinstatement  or appropriate action should be  taken as per law, if otherwise, available. Since  the respondent is only a temporary  government servant, the power being available  under Rule 5(1) of the Rules, it is always open  to the competent authority to invoke the said  power and terminate the services of the  employee instead of conducting the enquiry or  to continue in service a government servant  accused of defalcation of public money. Re- instatement would be a charter for him to  indulge with impunity in misappropriation of  public money."

       The ratio of Anthony’s case (supra) can be culled out  from paragraph 22 of the judgment which reads as follows:

"The conclusions which are deducible from  various decisions of this Court referred to  above are:

(i)     Departmental proceedings and  proceedings in a criminal case can  proceed simultaneously as there is no bar  in their being conducted simultaneously,  though separately.

(ii)    If the departmental proceedings and the  criminal case are based on identical and  similar set of facts and the charge in the  criminal case against the delinquent  employee is of a grave nature which  involves complicated questions of law and  fact, it would be desirable to stay the  departmental proceedings till the  conclusion of the criminal case.

(iii)   Whether the nature of a charge in a  criminal case is grave and whether  complicated questions of fact and law are  involved in that case, will depend upon  the nature of offence, the nature of the  case launched against the employee on  the basis of evidence and material  collected against him during investigation  or as reflected in the charge sheet.

(iv)    The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii)  above cannot be considered in isolation to  stay the departmental proceedings but  due regard has to be given to the fact that  the departmental proceedings cannot be  unduly delayed.

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

(v)     If the criminal case does not proceed or  its disposal is being unduly delayed, the  departmental proceedings, even if  they  were stayed on account of the pendency  of the criminal case, can be resumed and  proceeded with so as to conclude them at  an early date, so that if the employee is  found not guilty his honour may be  vindicated and in case he is found guilty,  the administration may get rid of him at  the earliest."

         Though the High Court had not indicated as to how the  decision of this Court in Anthony’s case (supra) laid down as a  matter of law that whenever there is acquittal in a criminal  trial re-instatement is automatic, in all probabilities basis was  para 36 of Anthony’s case (supra) which reads as follows:  

"36. For the reasons stated above, the appeal  is allowed, the impugned judgment passed by  the Division Bench of the High Court is set  aside and that of the learned Single Judge,  insofar as it purports to allow the writ petition,  is upheld. The learned Single Judge has also  given liberty to the respondents to initiate  fresh disciplinary proceedings. In the peculiar  circumstances of the case, specially having  regard  to the fact that the appellant is  undergoing this agony since 1985 despite  having been acquitted by the criminal court in  1987, we would not direct any fresh  departmental enquiry to be instituted against  him on the same set of facts. The appellant  shall be reinstated forthwith on the post of  Security Officer and shall also be paid the  entire arrears of salary, together with all  allowances from the date of suspension till his  reinstatement, within three months. The  appellant would also be entitled to his cost  which is quantified at Rs.15,000/-."  

                                               (underlined for emphasis)

The High Court unfortunately did not discuss the factual  aspects and by merely placing reliance on earlier decision of  the Court held that reinstatement was mandated.  Reliance on  the decision without looking into the factual background of the  case before it is clearly impermissible. A decision is a  precedent on its own facts. Each case presents its own  features. It is not everything said by a Judge while giving  judgment that constitutes a precedent. The only thing in a  Judge’s decision binding a party is the principle upon which  the case is decided and for this reason it is important to  analyse a decision and isolate from it the ratio decidendi.   According to the well-settled theory of precedents, every  decision contains three basic postulates \026 (i) findings of  material facts, direct and inferential. An inferential finding of  facts is the inference which the Judge draws from the direct,  or perceptible facts; (ii) statements of the principles of law  applicable to the legal problems disclosed by the facts; and (iii)  judgment based on the combined effect of the above.  A  decision is an authority for what it actually decides.  What is  of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every  observation found therein nor what logically flows from the

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

various observations made in the judgment.  The enunciation  of the reason or principle on which a question before a Court  has been decided is alone binding as a precedent.  (See: State  of Orissa v. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra and Ors. (AIR 1968 SC  647) and Union of India and Ors. v. Dhanwanti Devi and Ors.  (1996 (6) SCC 44).  A case is a precedent and binding for what  it explicitly decides and no more.  The words used by Judges  in their judgments are not to be read as if they are words in an  Act of Parliament. In Quinn v. Leathem (1901) AC 495 (H.L.),  Earl of Halsbury LC observed that every judgment must be  read as applicable to the particular facts proved or assumed to  be proved, since the generality of the expressions which are  found there are not intended to be exposition of the whole law  but governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case  in which such expressions are found and a case is only an  authority for what it actually decides.                       

       Unfortunately, the High Court has not discussed the  factual scenario as to how the Anthony’s case (supra) had any  application. As noted above, the position in law relating to  acquittal in a criminal case and question of re-instatement has  been dealt with in Sidhana’s case (supra). As the High Court  had not dealt with the factual scenario and as to how the  Anthony’s case (supra) helps the respondent, we think it  appropriate to remit the matter back to the High Court for  fresh consideration. Since the matter is pending for long, it  would be in the interest of the parties if the High Court is  requested to dispose of the writ petition within a period of 4  months from the date of receipt of this order.  

       The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent with no  order as to costs.