Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1303 (ALL)

Ashok Kumar v. U. P. State Transport Corporation

2002-09-18

RAKESH TIWARI

body2002
JUDGMENT : - RakeshTiwari,J. 1. HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records. 2. THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the award dated 3.4.1992, passed by the labour court, Annexure-3 and the order of termination dated 20.4.1982, passed by respondent No. 2, Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The petitioner was appointed as a Bus Conductor on 10.6.1990, in U. P. State Transport Corporation. He was issued charge-sheets dated 21.1.1981 and 24.10.1981 for carrying passengers without ticket on four occasions in order to embezzle the Corporation revenue. His services were terminated by order dated 20.4.1982, passed by the Assistant Regional Manager, U. P. State Transport Corporation, Muzaffarnagar, respondent No. 2 after holding enquiry in the charges. 3. THE petitioner raised an industrial dispute against order of his termination, which was referred to by the State Government to the Labour Court (1) U. P. Meerut, where it was registered as I.D. Case No. 89 of 1983. THE labour court by award dated 3.4.1992, has held that all the charges of misconduct against the petitioner stood proved and has given finding of fact that the punishment awarded to him cannot be said to be disproportionate to the charges in the circumstances of the case. It has further been held that he is not entitled to reinstatement in service with back wages or other benefits. 4. THE petitioner has assailed the award on the ground that the findings given by the labour court are against the evidence on record and are unwarranted in the eyes of law as no charge is made out against him. THE further ground of challenge is that the punishment awarded against him is disproportionate and is not tenable in the eyes of law. It is alleged that when the labour court came to the conclusion that the existing enquiry against the petitioner is not in accordance with law, the termination of his service should have been treated from the date of the impugned award i.e., 3.4.1992 and not from the date of termination of service by respondent No. 2 vide order dated 20.4.1982. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following cases : (1) B. C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and others, JT 1995 (8) SC 65. (2) Shri Chand v. Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur and others, (1996) 1 UPLBEC 2. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following cases : (1) B. C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and others, JT 1995 (8) SC 65. (2) Shri Chand v. Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur and others, (1996) 1 UPLBEC 2. (3) Ram Pratap v. State of U. P. and others, 1999 (3) AWC 2049 : (1999) 3 UPLBEC 102. (4) Unnati Chaturvedi (Dr.) (Smt.) v. Director of Education, Allahabad and others, (1999) 3 UPLBEC 103. (5) P. C. Srivastava v. Registrar, Cooperative Societies and others, 2000 (1) ESC 82 (All) (6) U. P. State Road Transport Corporation and others v. Mahesh Kumar Mishra and others, 2000 (2) AWC 1475 (SC). 5. IN the peculiar facts and the circumstances of the instant case, the petitioner has been found to be carrying the passengers without tickets earlier also on four occasions. The labour court has considered all the facts and the circumstances of the case and has come to the conclusion that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is neither disproportionate to the charges nor severe. It did not require any interference by this Court. 6. THE counsel for the respondents has contended that the petitioner was found to be carrying passengers without ticket so as to embezzle the Corporation revenue on four occasions and committed the offence of criminal misconduct, as such he has rightly been dismissed from service. It is further contended that the punishment awarded to him cannot be said to be disproportionate to the charges. He has relied upon the following cases : In B. C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and others, JT 1995 (8) SC 65 (supra), it was a case of misconduct in which the appellant was found in possession of assets disproportionate to his known source of income. It was held by the Apex Court that the High Court while exercising the powers of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/ Tribunal. 7. IN Shri Chand v. Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur and others, (1996) 1 UPLBEC 2, this Court found that the charge of embezzlement of stamp of Rs. 7. IN Shri Chand v. Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur and others, (1996) 1 UPLBEC 2, this Court found that the charge of embezzlement of stamp of Rs. 10 was only disproportionate and perverse and in these circumstances, quashed the order of punishment on the ground that no proper opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and he was directed to be reinstated in service on deposit of Rs. 10. 8. IN Ram Pratap v. State of U. P. and others, 1999 (3) AWC 2049 : (1999) 3 UPLBEC (Sum) 102, it was held that the order of dismissal from service containing no reasons for conclusion was quashed as it was a non-speaking order. IN this case similar charges have been levelled as were levelled against the petitioner, were also levelled against one Khushal Singh, Assistant Engineer working with the petitioner. The Administrative Tribunal conducted the enquiry and recommended for his dismissal from service, but he was awarded only a minor punishment of stoppage of three yearly increments as was awarded in the case of Khushal Singh. IN the counter-affidavit filed in that case no reason whatsoever had been disclosed as to why discriminatory treatment was given to the petitioner and as to why the petitioner was removed from service, when Khushal Singh was awarded only minor punishment on same charges and in same circumstances. In P. C. Srivastava v. Registrar, Cooperative Societies and others, 2000 (1) ESC 82 (All), it was held that the petitioner was dismissed after suspension. On enquiry it was found that the real culprit was Rati Pal and not the petitioner, though he was over all in charge and he should have exercised proper control of the affairs of the Cooperative Store. In these circumstances, the punishment of dismissal was held to be highly disproportionate to the misconduct alleged. 9. IN U. P. State Road Transport Corporation and others v. Mahesh Kumar Mishra and others, 2000 (2) AWC 1475 (SC), it was held that the petitioner was dismissed from service. IN this case, the charge against the conductor of the bus was that he had issued tickets from Zero Road to Manauri and charged only Rs. 1.50 instead of Rs. 1.80, though it was not on long distance bus, but inter-city bus. It was a case of allowing the passengers to travel without ticket. IN this case, the charge against the conductor of the bus was that he had issued tickets from Zero Road to Manauri and charged only Rs. 1.50 instead of Rs. 1.80, though it was not on long distance bus, but inter-city bus. It was a case of allowing the passengers to travel without ticket. This Court directed reinstatement of respondent with 25% back wages, as the dispute whether the passengers boarded at High Court or at Zero Road, could not be proved, even though they being local passengers, their statements was not recorded on the point of place of their boarding. Thus, the above judgment cited by the petitioner is also of no help to him. 10. IN Shri Krishna Sharma v. Assistant Regional Manager, (supra), it has been held that if a passenger is found travelling without ticket, the Conductor of the bus is responsible for it. The inference drawn that the petitioner failed to perform duties as provided in the rules, cannot be said to be erroneous. The misconduct of carrying passenger without ticket is very serious and his services could be dispensed with. In Imtiaz Ahmad v. U. P. State Road Transport Corporation, Lucknow (supra), it was held that the petitioner was employed as Bus Conductor. His duty was not only to conduct the bus but also realise fare and if a conductor is found guilty of not realising the fare and permitting the passengers to travel without tickets, it cannot be said to be a minor charge for awarding lesser punishment than the dismissal from service. This Court held in these circumstances, there was no justification to retain him in service and the impugned order does not suffer from any error of law. 11. IN Shitla Prasad Srivastava v. U. P. State Road Transport Corporation (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that the finding of the Inquiry Officer that the appellant did not issue any tickets to the passengers and thereby misappropriated the money cannot be faulted with and the punishment of termination of service cannot be said to be disproportionate to the charges. 12. 12. IN a similar case in U. P. S. R. T. C. and others v. Har Narain Singh and others, the Apex Court has held that where High Court reappraised the evidence led in the enquiry and quashed the order passed by the Tribunal as also, the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, it clearly exceeded its jurisdiction in doing so because the High Court was not sitting in appeal over the findings given by the disciplinary authority. The Apex Court set aside the impugned order of the High Court and restored the order of the Tribunal. In the instant case, the findings of fact have been given by the labour court, which have upheld the punishment given by the Corporation after enquiry. In the charges of serious misconduct for carrying passengers without ticket for which the only appropriate punishment is dismissal from service. In the past also, the conduct of the petitioner was not without blemish. Corruption is now rampant in the society and has to be rooted out by strict enforcement of law. The punishment in the aforesaid circumstances cannot be said to be highly disproportionate so as to shock the conscience of the Court. The disciplinary authority as well as the labour court has come to the conclusion that there is no justification to retain him in service. The findings of fact cannot be normally interfered with by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India until and unless there are strong reasons of mala fide and perversity on the face of record. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned award and it is not a fit case for interference by exercise of extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. NO other point has been raised before this Court. 14. FOR these reasons, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.