Holding

The High Court’s finding that the non‑supply of carbon copies caused prejudice was correct, and the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, also awarding lump‑sum compensation and directing relief under Section 89 of the Income Tax Act.

Summary

The respondent, a bus conductor of the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, was dismissed for allegedly erasing way‑bills and reselling tickets. He contended that carbon copies of crucial documents were withheld during the disciplinary enquiry, causing prejudice. The trial court and first appellate court rejected his claim, but the High Court allowed his second appeal, finding that the non‑supply of carbon copies was intentional and prejudicial. The Corporation appealed to the Supreme Court, which held that the High Court’s factual findings were correct and there was no ground for interference. The Court also awarded a lump‑sum compensation of Rs.35,000 for back wages and directed payment without tax deduction, permitting the respondent to seek relief under Section 89 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Issues considered

Whether the failure to produce carbon copies of way‑bills and checking reports during the disciplinary enquiry caused prejudice to the employee.
Whether the High Court erred in interfering with the findings of the lower courts on a factual issue.
Whether a lump‑sum award can be granted in lieu of executing back‑wage claims after protracted litigation.
Whether relief under Section 89 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be granted without further enquiry.

Legislation cited

Income Tax Act, 1961s. 89

Subjects

disciplinary enquiryprejudicecarbon copiesback wageslump sum compensationSection 89Income Tax Actservice lawspecial leave petitionhigh court interference

Judgment

U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION A
V.
MUNIRUDDIN
..).-
AUGUST 17, 1990

[M.H. KANIA AND K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, JJ.] B

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 compensation towards backwa-
ges awarded instead of driving parties to go through indefinite execution
proceedings-Relief under Section 89 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for
c
spreading to be given.

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 D
challenging the dismissal order on the ground that carbon ·copies of
certain important documents were not made available to him during tht!
enquiry and this had caused serious prejudice to him. The trial court
dismissed 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 E
prejudice to the employee.

The appellant-Corporation file.d a Special Leave Petition before
this Court, contending that the High Court had grossly erred in in-
terfering in second appeal with the concurrent findings, and that the
failure to produce the carbon copies of some of the documents did not F
.
cause any prejudice and, at any rate, it was a question of fact•

Disposing of the appeal, by special leave, this Court,

HELD: I. The High Court has not committed any error which
warrants interference. (780E] G

The respondent's plea has been tb~t from the carbon copies he
would have shown that he could not have carried on the erasures or
made false entries and, therefore~ non-st·pply 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 be was H

777
778 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1990) 3 S.C.R.

shown the originals. The High Court no doubt has considered this aspect
A in detail and in doing so referred to the contents of various documents.
From this alone it cannot be 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
B make the erasures or any other false entry, it naturally became neces-
sary to see whether they were also found in carbon copies. Therefore,
the High Court considered the various figures and entries in the origi-
._;~, , .....
nals iil 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 documents had
been shown, the authority may well have been convinced that the
C charge levelled against him was not correct, and that, therefore, the
non-supply of these documents bad caused prejudice. [780D-EJ

2. The litigation is going on for the last 25 years and the respon-
dent has already reached the age of superannuation. Hence the parties
D 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
E for sp1eadhlg'ova- this amount, and the concerned Income Tax Officer should
also give the~ 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 & Anr., [1985] l SCC 118,
relied on.
F
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3169
of 1981.

From the Judgment and Order dated 7.5.1981 of the Allahabad
High Court in Second Appeal No. 1018of1974.
0
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.
TPT: CORPN. v. MUNIRUDDIN (REDDY, J.] 779

-'. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A
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 litiga-
tion for over 16 years. The respondent was a bus-conductor in U.P.
.A State Road Transport Corporation('Corporation' for short). A trap B
was laid against him and a disciplinary enquiry was initiated and dis-
missal 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 dis-
missed by the appellate court. Relentless as he was, he carried the c
matter to the High Court by way of second appeal and his plea was
accepted by the High Court and the second appeal was allowed.
Aggrieved by the said judgment, the Corporation has approached this
Court. '
D
' of the Corporation it is contended that the High Court
On behalf
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 during the enquiry has no substance.

_.\. One of the main issues framed before the trial court was whether E
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 investigating officer and if so what would be its
effect? The charge against the respondet was that he erased the way-·
bills and resold some already sold tickets. During the enquiry the
'-,, delinquent employee was permitted to·inspect the documents but he F
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 G
and non-supply of them had caused great prejudice. 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
.. ~ w'as shown the originals and aiso 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 H
' 780 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 3 S.C.R.

A and it ultimately reached the conclusion that the important documents r
' .. 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'· ;.te it is a
question of fact, the High Court erred in interfering ir. :he second
B appeal. To satisfy ourselves we wanted to peruse the judgments 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
- c ·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
D copies.. I
From this point of view the High Court considered 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 docu-
a
ments and if. carbon copy of the way-bills had been shown, the
authority may well have . been convinced that the charge levelled
E 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 interference under Article
136 of the Constitution.

'-- F . 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
ihe respndent must have sought some employment or the other and
G 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 indefinite execution proceedings. On the
question of granting lump sum amount towards the backwages and
..___,,.. allowances till the date of his retirement we have also heared both ' -./
/sides. Under somewhat similar circumstances this Court in Sohan
H Singh v. Union of India and Another, [1984] 1 SCC 162 granted lump
TPT. CORPN. v. MUNJRUDDlN [REDDY, J .] 781

sum amount instead of driving the parties to go to the executing coun A
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 regula-
tion and the matter ultimately came up before this Court. Taking into
consideration the facts and circumstances this Court held that the emp-
loyee should be compensated by payment of a lump sum amount in
B
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'. With-
. out 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 c
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, i.t
may attract the levy of income tax. But since the amount represents
D
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 circumstaces, 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 E
be spread over and gave a direction to the ~oncerned Income Tax
Officer to give immediate relief under Section 89 without further
enquiry.

Accordingly We direct the Corporation to pay the lump suni
amount of Rs.35,000 without deducting income tax. Since the respon- F
dent 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.