Holding

The Supreme Court held that the disciplinary authority's punishment of removal was appropriate and the High Court was not justified in reducing it, as courts cannot substitute punishment without proper reasoning.

Summary

The respondent, a conductor with the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, obstructed a police inspection of his bus and misbehaved with officials, constituting a criminal breach of trust. A departmental inquiry proved the misconduct and the corporation dismissed him; the departmental appeal was rejected. The Labour Court, treating the finding as perverse, ordered his reinstatement with full back wages. The corporation filed a writ petition and the High Court, exercising Article 226, reduced the punishment to a stoppage of two increments and denied back wages. The Supreme Court held that dismissal was an appropriate punishment for such serious misconduct and that the High Court was not justified in substituting the disciplinary authority's order without reasons. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside both the High Court and Labour Court orders and upheld the dismissal, allowing the corporation's appeal.

Issues considered

Whether a High Court, exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226, can substitute the punishment awarded by a disciplinary authority without assigning reasons.
Whether the punishment of dismissal for a criminal breach of trust by a person in a position of trust is proportionate and appropriate.
Whether the Labour Court's award of reinstatement with back wages can be interfered with by a writ petition.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 226

Subjects

dismissaldisciplinary actioncriminal breach of trustwrit jurisdictionArticle 226industrial disputelabour courtpunishment proportionalityreinstatementback wages

Judgment

U.P.S.RT.C A
v.
RAM KISHAN ARORA

MAY09, 2007

[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.] B

Labour Laws-Dismissal from service-By Disciplinary Authority-On
charge ofcriminal breach oftrust-Industrial dispute-Labour court directing
reinstatement of workman with full back wages-In Writ Jurisdiction, C
punishment of dismissal reduced to stoppage of two increments by High
Court-On appeal, held : Punishment of dismissal appropriate, in view of
serious nature of misconduct-High Court not right in reducing the
punishment in exercise of writ jurisdiction, without assigning any reason--
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226-Writ Jurisdiction.
D
Respondent was employed as a conductor with the appellant-Corporation.
While the respondent was on duty on a bus, the bus was checked by an
inspection team. Respondent obstructed the checking process and also
misbehaved with the authorities. Charges were issued against him. The same
were proved in the departmental proceedings. Appointing authority removed
him from service. Departmental appeal thereagainst was also dismissed. E
Respondent raised industrial dispute. Labour Court directed his reinstatement
with full back wages. Writ Petition by the employer was partly allowed
directing his reintstatement with stoppage of two increments with cumulative
effect. Back wages were denied. Hence the present appeal by the Corporation.

Allowing the appeal, the Court F

HELD: 1. The punishment of removal imposed by the disciplinary
authority is correct. The 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, the High Court in exercise G
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. [Paras 11and6) (21!)-B; 208-8, C)

2. The High Court has not arrived at the conclusion that the quantum
205 H
206 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R.

A 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
B to that of the Disciplinary Authority. [Para 7] (208-C, Df

Anand Regional Coop. Oil Seedsgrowers' Union Ltd. v. Shaileshkumar
Harshadbhai Shai, (2006] 6 6 SCC 548; UP.State Road Transport
Corporation, Dehradun v. Suresh Pal, (2006] 8 SCC 108 and Amrit Vanaspati /
Co. Ltd. v. Khem Chand and Anr., (2006] 6 SCC 325, relied on.
c CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2410 of2007.

From the Final Judgment and Order dated 05.08.2005 of the High Court
ofUttaranchal at Nainital in Writ Petition No. 1169 of 200 I (M/S)(Old No. 1209
of2000.
D Pradeep Misra for the Appellant.

C.L. Sahu, Rishabh Sahu and Hema Sahu for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

E S.B. SINHA, J. I. Leave granted.

2. Respondent was working with the appellant - 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-078/2932
F plying on Dehradun 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
G 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
H
U.P.S.R.T.C v. RAM KISHAN ARORA (S.B. SINHA, J.] 207
the interest of the Corporation to keep the respondent in service. He was, A
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 B
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 C
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 D
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
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. E
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 F
cumulative effect. However, he shall not be entitled for any back
I_
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 G
for any back wages."

4. The Appellant Corporation alone is before us in this appeal. The
respondent has not filed any appeal.
H
208 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R.

A 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.

B 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
c 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
D 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. "i
Shai/eshkumar Harshadbhai Shai, [2006] 6 SCC 548, this Court opined:
E
"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."
F
9. In UP. State Road Transport Corporation, Dehradun v. Suresh
Pal, [2006] 8 SCC I 08, 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
G 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 Constitution then it will give a wrong signal in the
society. All the State Road Transport Corporations in the country
H
U.P.S.R.T.C v. RAM KISHAN ARORA (S.B. SINHA, J.) 209
have gone in red because of the misconduct of such kind of incumbents, A
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 B
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 C
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 perfonned and similar relevant
circumstances which go into the decision-making process while D
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 E
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 F
nothing more to be added."

10. In Amrit Vanaspati Co. Ltd. v. Khem Chand and Anr., [2006] 6
SCC 325, this Court held:

" .. .In cur opinion, the High Court while exercising powers under writ
jurisdiction cannot deal with aspects like whether the quantum of G
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 H
210 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R.
.....
A High Court has gravely erred in holding that the evidence of
Respondent I was not considered by the Labour Court and had
returned the finding that the evidence of Respondent I 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...."
B
11. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot
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
C this case, there shall be no order as to costs.

KKT. Appeal allowed.