Manojkumar M. Kishori v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation
2016-04-13
K.M.THAKER
body2016
DigiLaw.ai
JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. V.D. Parghi for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Hardik C. Raval for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2. This petition is filed somewhere in June, 2013 and is still at notice stage and is not admitted. Today, at the time of hearing of the petition, learned advocate for the petitioner tendered written arguments and submitted that the petition may be heard decided for final order and may be decided finally. 3. Rule. Learned advocate Mr. Raval waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondents. 4. At the request of the learned advocates for the petitioner and respondents, the matter is heard for final order. 5. In this petition, the petitioner, who was, at the relevant time, serving as a Conductor with the respondent - Corporation, has challenged the award dated 19.2.2013 passed by the learned Labour Court, Godhra, in Reference (LCG) No. 33 of 2011, whereby the learned Labour Court, after considering the evidence on record and submissions by the contesting parties, rejected the Reference, without grating the relief as prayed for by the workman. Feeling aggrieved by the said award dated 19.2.2013, the petitioner - Conductor has taken out this petition. 6. So far as the facts are concerned, which have emerged from the records and from the submissions made by the learned advocates give out that the petitioner was working as Conductor of the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation. On the allegation that his service was illegally and arbitrarily terminated, the petitioner workman raised an industrial dispute. The dispute was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Godhra, by appropriate Government vide order of Reference dated 17.2.2011. The said order was registered as Reference (LCG) No. 33 of 2011. 7. During the proceedings before the learned Labour Court, the petitioner - workman filed his statement of claim (Exh. 2), wherein the petitioner workman alleged inter alia that on 1.7.2008, he was on duty on the passenger bus of the Corporation, which was enroute to Dahod from Ahmedabad. According to the petitioner workman, the bus was inspected by Squad near Nadiad, which is at distance of about 60 Km. from Ahmedabad.
2), wherein the petitioner workman alleged inter alia that on 1.7.2008, he was on duty on the passenger bus of the Corporation, which was enroute to Dahod from Ahmedabad. According to the petitioner workman, the bus was inspected by Squad near Nadiad, which is at distance of about 60 Km. from Ahmedabad. The inspection squad found that the petitioner workman received the amount from group of thee passengers, but had not issued tickets and in other case, he received amount from one passenger, who was travelling from Ahmedabad to Dakor, but had not issued ticket. According to the report of the squad, the petitioner had collected a sum of Rs. 168/- from the group of three passengers and not issued tickets and from the single passenger, he had received Rs. 58/-, but had not issued ticket. The said report was submitted to the Competent Authority, who issued charge-sheet against the petitioner workman. The Domestic Inquiry was initiated pursuant to the charge-sheet and upon conclusion of the Domestic Inquiry, the Inquiry Officer, after examining the evidence on record, reached to the conclusion that the charge against the petitioner is proved. Accordingly, he submitted his findings/report to the Disciplinary Authority. After considering his report and after inviting, explanation with regard to the report and penalty, the Disciplinary Authority decided to terminate the service of the petitioner. Consequently, vide order dated 8.10.2008, the service of the petitioner came to be terminated. 8. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner filed Departmental Appeal, which was rejected vide order dated 30.1.2010. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of the First Appellate Authority, the petitioner herein preferred Second Appeal before the Departmental Authority. The said Second Appeal also came to be dismissed vide order dated 1.12.2010. 9. Feeling aggrieved by the orders of Disciplinary Authority, First Appellate Authority and Second Appellate Authority, the petitioner raised dispute before the learned Labour Court. Before the Labour Court, the petitioner workman claimed that he had not received any amount from the said persons and said persons were taken on the board. On the way, when the bus had left Ahmedabad and before he could complete the process of issuing tickets, the squad had stopped the bus and started the checking.
Before the Labour Court, the petitioner workman claimed that he had not received any amount from the said persons and said persons were taken on the board. On the way, when the bus had left Ahmedabad and before he could complete the process of issuing tickets, the squad had stopped the bus and started the checking. The petitioner also claimed before the Labour Court that sufficient opportunity was not granted during Domestic Inquiry and the Inquiry Officer recorded the findings without support of any evidence and the Departmental Authority failed to appreciate that the allegation and charge was not proved and that he has not committed any misconduct and he had not misappropriated any amount. On such claim and allegations, the petitioner prayed that the order passed by the Authority may be set aside and the Corporation may be directed to reinstate him with consequential benefits. 10. The respondent Corporation filed written statement and denied the allegations of the workman. It was claimed that the petitioner was working with the Corporation since last 7 years and during the said period of 7 years, about 16 defaults were recorded against the petitioner and out of 16 defaults, 12 defaults were in respect of similar allegation i.e. of not issuing tickets after accepting amount from the passengers. It was also claimed that the bus was checked after it had travelled about 60 to 65 Km. from the starting destination and yet the tickets were not issued to the passengers and that too after having accepted the fare. It is claimed that the passengers had given statements before the checking squad, wherein they specifically stated that the conductor had not issued the tickets, though they paid the fare/amount. The respondent Corporation claimed that sufficient evidence was available on record of the departmental inquiry and therefore, the Inquiry Officer reached to findings that the allegation is proved. It was also claimed that the said evidence and report of the Inquiry Officer were taken into account and thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority had passed the order, which was confirmed by the First Appellate Authority and Second Appellate Authority. It was also claimed that the sufficient opportunity was granted to the petitioner during the Domestic Inquiry and since the allegations against the workman are proved and that his past record was tainted, the Disciplinary Authority had passed the order.
It was also claimed that the sufficient opportunity was granted to the petitioner during the Domestic Inquiry and since the allegations against the workman are proved and that his past record was tainted, the Disciplinary Authority had passed the order. The Corporation prayed that the Reference may be rejected. 11. Learned Labour Court has considered the case of the petitioner and defence of the Corporation and also considered the evidence on record and submissions of the learned advocates for the contesting parties. After considering the material on record and submissions made by the learned advocates for the parties, the learned Labour Court reached to the conclusion that the inquiry conducted against the petitioner was legal and fair and there was no defect in Domestic Inquiry. The learned Labour Court also reached to the conclusion that the findings of the Inquiry Officer cannot be said to be perverse and Inquiry Officer was right and justified in coming to the conclusion that the allegations are proved. Having reached to these conclusions, the learned Labour Court took into consideration the past record of the petitioner and upon being satisfied with the quantum of penalty, the learned Labour Court dismissed the Reference by an award dated 19.2.2013, which is challenged by the petitioner. 12. Learned advocate Mr. Parghi for the petitioner has tendered his written arguments wherein, it is contended and claimed that the petitioner was appointed as Conductor with the respondent Corporation and he joined his duty in the year 2001. On 1.7.2008, the petitioner was on duty on the bus plying from Ahmedabad to Dahod. The checking was carried out at Nadiad Toll Naka and four passengers were found without ticket though fare was collected from them, out of which one group of three passengers was travelling to Umreth and one passenger was travelling to Dakor. It is also contended that on 4.9.2008, the petitioner was served with the charge-sheet dated 4.9.2008 and thereafter, Departmental Proceedings were initiated against him. The petitioner was charged for not issuing tickets to the passenger after collecting the fare within prescribed time limit under the provisions of Section 7(A) and for committing theft under the provisions of Section 12(A) of the Discipline and Appeal Procedure.
The petitioner was charged for not issuing tickets to the passenger after collecting the fare within prescribed time limit under the provisions of Section 7(A) and for committing theft under the provisions of Section 12(A) of the Discipline and Appeal Procedure. It is further contended that the respondent Corporation had not recorded and not produced evidence of any independent witness i.e. passengers or the driver of the bus in support of their case, which is illegal and against the provisions of law. It is further contended that if any offence of theft had been committed by the petitioner, the cash bag of the petitioner ought to have been checked, but the checking staff/reporter had not checked the cash bag of the petitioner/conductor and had not tallied the cash amount lying in the cash box with the amount of tickets issued. The basic requirement was to prove excess of cash found from the offender, but the said act was not made by the checking staff of reporter. He further submitted that the petitioner had specifically stated that the passengers had boarded the bus from the Express High Way and at the time of boarding the bus, they had agreed to pay full fare from Ahmedabad to Umreth (Three passengers) and Dakor (One passenger), however, they picked up quarrel with the conductor about the fare and had stated incorrect details before the checking staff. 13. It was further contended that the competent authority who had passed the order of removal from service, had solely relied upon the evidence of two passengers. He also alleged that the petitioner was not given opportunity to cross-examine the said witness/passengers and therefore, the written evidence of the said witnesses ought not to have been considered by the Competent Authority and in the absence of any cogent material against the petitioner, the respondent Authority ought not to have passed the order against the petitioner. 14. Per Contra, learned advocate Mr. Raval for the Corporation submitted that the checking squad had recorded the statement of the passengers. Even the statement of the petitioner was recorded and on that basis, the report was submitted to the competent Authority. The said material was available on record before the Inquiry Officer. The petitioner had participated in the proceedings before the Inquiry Officer and he was granted sufficient opportunity of hearing by the Inquiry Officer.
Even the statement of the petitioner was recorded and on that basis, the report was submitted to the competent Authority. The said material was available on record before the Inquiry Officer. The petitioner had participated in the proceedings before the Inquiry Officer and he was granted sufficient opportunity of hearing by the Inquiry Officer. He also submitted that the Disciplinary Authority passed order after taking into account the report of the Inquiry Officer that the allegations are proved and after taking into account the past service record of the petitioner and the said order of the Disciplinary Authority came to be confirmed by the First Appellate Authority as well as Second Appellate Authority. He submitted that before the Labour Court, the workman admitted the legality and propriety of the inquiry and declared that he does not challenge the legality of the award but the workman kept open his challenge against the findings of the Inquiry Officer. Therefore, the learned Labour Court examined the findings of the Inquiry Officer in light of the evidence and reached to the conclusion that the findings are not perverse. He further submitted that having reached to the said conclusion, the learned Labour Court dismissed the Reference and therefore, there is no justification to interfere with the award. He submitted that the findings and conclusion recorded by the learned Labour Court are supported by cogent evidence and satisfactory reasons and they are not perverse. He submitted that the past record of the petitioner is also tainted and out of 16 default recorded in default card, 12 defaults are of similar nature. On such contention, learned advocate Mr. Raval submitted that the petition may be dismissed. Learned advocate Mr. Raval relied upon the decision in the case of State of Haryana and Another v. Rattan Singh reported in AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1512 and the decision in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Suresh Chand Sharma reported in (2010) 6 Supreme Court Cases 555. 15. I have considered rival submissions made by the learned advocate for the contesting parties and the material on record. I have also examined the impugned award. 16. At the outset, it is relevant to mention that the petitioner himself admitted the legality and propriety of the inquiry.
15. I have considered rival submissions made by the learned advocate for the contesting parties and the material on record. I have also examined the impugned award. 16. At the outset, it is relevant to mention that the petitioner himself admitted the legality and propriety of the inquiry. Learned Labour Court has, accordingly, held that the inquiry does not suffer from any infirmity and was conducted in legal and fair manner. 17. Another relevant aspect, which is required to be mentioned at the outset is the fact emerging from the petitioner's default card maintained by the Corporation. From the default card, which was placed on record before the Labour Court, it has emerged that about 16 defaults were registered by Corporation in default card during 7 years of service with Corporation. According to the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court, 12 defaults out 16 defaults, were of similar nature i.e. in 12 cases, it was found that the petitioner had received the amount, but had not issued the tickets. 18. It has also emerged from the record in the present case that the checking squad had recorded statements of the concerned passengers and the passengers had in their respective statements, declared that the petitioner had collected the amount/fair from them, but had not issued tickets. 19. In view of the inspection by the checking squad and on the basis of the report and material submitted by the checking squad along with report, the charge-sheet was issued. 20. The charge-sheet dated 22.9.2008 contained allegation that on 1.7.2008, when the petitioner was on duty on the bus which was enroute from Ahmedabad to Dahod, he had not issued tickets to a group of three passengers, who were travelling from Ahmedabad to Umreth. It was alleged that he had received Rs. 56/- per ticket from the said passengers, but had not issued tickets. 21. It was further alleged in the charge-sheet that on the same day i.e. on 1.7.2008, in the same bus, the petitioner had received Rs. 58/- from one passenger, who was travelling from Ahmedabad to Dakor, but he did not issue the ticket. 22. On such allegation, the said charge-sheet was issued and thereafter, the Domestic Inquiry was conducted as mentioned earlier. The inquiry is found to be legal and fair.
58/- from one passenger, who was travelling from Ahmedabad to Dakor, but he did not issue the ticket. 22. On such allegation, the said charge-sheet was issued and thereafter, the Domestic Inquiry was conducted as mentioned earlier. The inquiry is found to be legal and fair. The Inquiry Officer took into account the report submitted by the Corporation, statements of the passengers, statement of the petitioner and other material, which were placed on record during the inquiry. On the basis of material available on record and after appreciating and analyzing the evidence, the Inquiry Officer reached to the conclusion that the charges and allegations are proved. 23. In view of the petitioner's contentions, the learned Labour Court examined the findings of the Inquiry Officer in light of the evidence, which were available on record. After having examined the report and findings of the Inquiry Officer in light of the evidence, the learned Labour Court reached to the conclusion that the findings of the Inquiry Officer are just, legal and correct and cannot be said to be perverse. The said conclusion of the learned Labour Court is based on the material available on record of Reference Case. 24. In this view of the mater, this Court would not sit in Appeal over the conclusion and findings recorded by the learned Labour Court after appreciating the evidence. This Court would also not enter into process of re-appreciation of evidence. 25. Mr. Parghi for the petitioner submitted that the Inquiry Officer and Departmental Authority and the learned Labour Court failed to appreciate the fact that the checking squad had not checked the cash bag of the petitioner and therefore, the findings holding that the charge is proved, could not have been approved and upheld. 26. At the first glance, the contention raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner appears to be attractive, however, on examination of the record, it comes out that the record contains the statements (including statements of the passengers), where the passengers categorically mentioned that they had paid the amount to the conductor but the tickets were not issued. 27.
26. At the first glance, the contention raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner appears to be attractive, however, on examination of the record, it comes out that the record contains the statements (including statements of the passengers), where the passengers categorically mentioned that they had paid the amount to the conductor but the tickets were not issued. 27. Even if for the purpose of examining the contentions of the petitioner, said statements are kept aside for a while, then also against clinching evidence i.e. statement given by the passengers on the date of incident i.e. 1.7.2008 as well as written statement submitted before the Labour Court, the petitioner had accepted and admitted that he had received the amount, but tickets were not issued. In his own statement, he mentioned that since the concerned persons had started arguing with him, he could not issue tickets. When the petitioner himself admitted in his statement that the amount was received by him, but the tickets were not issued then the petitioner's contention on the ground that cash bag was not examined, fails. The respondent would contend that the petitioner might have kept the amount at some other place and on examination of cash bag the amount might not have been traced. 28. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioner himself admitted in his statement that he had not issued tickets and he had received the amount. 29. In this context, it would be appropriate to consider the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision of the case of State of Haryana and Another v. Rattan Singh (Supra) where Hon'ble Apex Court observed that : "3. The principal ground on which the courts below have declared the termination bad is that none of the 11 passengers have been examined at the domestic enquiry. Secondly, it has been mentioned that there is a departmental instruction that checking inspectors should record the statements of passengers, which was not done in this case. The explanation of the State, as done out by the record, is that the inspector of the flying squad who had said that they had paid the fares but they declined to give such written statement. The third round which weighted with the courts was, perhaps, that the co-conductor in the bus had supported with this evidence, the guiltlessness of the respondent. 4.
The third round which weighted with the courts was, perhaps, that the co-conductor in the bus had supported with this evidence, the guiltlessness of the respondent. 4. It is well settled that in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. It is true that departmental authorities and administrative tribunals must be careful in evaluating such material and should not glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not relevant under the Indian Evidence Act. For this proposition it is not necessary to cite decisions nor text books, although we have been taken through case law and other authorities by counsel on both sides. The essence of a judicial approach is objectivity, exclusion of extraneous materials or considerations and observance of rules of natural justice. Of course, fairplay is the basis and if perversity or arbitrariness, bias or surrender of independence of judgment vitiate the conclusions reached, such finding, even though of a domestic tribunal, cannot be held good. However, the courts below misdirected themselves, perhaps, in insisting that passengers who had come in and gone out should be chased and brought before the tribunal before a valid finding could be recorded. The 'residuum' rule to which counsel for the respondent referred, based upon certain passengers from American jurisprudence does not go to that extent nor does the passage from Halsbury insist on such rigid requirement. The simple point is, was there some evidence or was there no evidence not in the sense of the technical rules governing regular court proceedings but in a fair common-sense way as men of understanding and worldly wisdom will accept. Viewed in this way, sufficiency of evidence in proof of the finding by a domestic tribunal is beyond scrutiny. Absence of any evidence in support of a ending is certainty available for the court to look into because it amounts to an error of law apparent on the record. We find, in this case, that the evidence of Chamanlal, Inspector of the flying squad, is some evidence which has relevance to the charge leveled against the respondent. Therefore, we are unable to hold that the order is invalid on that ground. 5.
We find, in this case, that the evidence of Chamanlal, Inspector of the flying squad, is some evidence which has relevance to the charge leveled against the respondent. Therefore, we are unable to hold that the order is invalid on that ground. 5. Reliance was placed, as earlier stated, on the non-compliance with the departmental instruction that statements of passengers should be recorded by inspectors. These are instructions of prudence, not rules that bind or vitiate in the violation. In this case, the Inspector tried to get the statements but the passengers declined, the psychology of the latter in such circumstances being understandable, although may not be approved. We cannot hold that merely because statements of passengers were not recorded the order that followed was invalid. Likewise, the revaluation of the evidence on the strength of co-conductor's testimony is a matter not for the court but for the administrative tribunal in conclusion, we do not think the courts below were right in overturning the finding of the domestic tribunal. 6. No actual punishment in the sense of dismissal or removal was inflicted and counsel for the State read out the order finally passed. The order merely states that the services were terminated and the State's Counsel agrees that there was no dismissal or removal or punitive punishment as seen from the order. All that we guess is, taking the words used in the order, the authorities probably had regard to the overall circumstances including the long years of service (10 years) and the comparatively young age of the delinquent at the time of termination for service (26) an relented in the matter of final termination by simply telling him off from service without inflicting any of the punishments. This lies within the power of the employer and it is not for us to say that the States should have punished him in a particular manner. Therefore, while confirming the order passed by the State and setting aside the decree of the courts below we hold that the consequences of a simple termination must follow. We, therefore, direct while allowing the appeal, that the State shall pay the respondent all that is due to him under the industrial law as an employment when his services are terminated without penal consequences apart from the salary for the period or he has worked after the recent reinstatement.
We, therefore, direct while allowing the appeal, that the State shall pay the respondent all that is due to him under the industrial law as an employment when his services are terminated without penal consequences apart from the salary for the period or he has worked after the recent reinstatement. Counsel for the appellants has agreed that this direction will be carried out as the State is bound to. With these observations, we allow the appeal but the parties will bear their costs throughout." 30. It is also appropriate and relevant to refer and take into account the observation by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Suresh Chand Sharma (Supra), where the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that "13. The Labour Court recorded a finding of fact that in respect of both the misconducts the passengers were found travelling without tickets and they had already paid fare to the employee/Conductor. Thus, it is not a case where the said employee could not issue the ticket and recover the fare from the travelling passengers, rather the finding has been recorded that after recovering the fare from the passengers, he did not issue tickets to them. Thus, there was an intention to misappropriate the fare recovered from the passengers who were found travelling without tickets at both the times. 14. The High Court dealt with the matter in a most cryptic manner. Relevant/main part of the judgment of the High Court reads as under: "5.....The Inspector in the cross-examination has also stated on oath that the cash was not checked. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that when the bus was checked, ten passengers were boarded on the bus and they were drunk and they were also denying taking the tickets. The learned Tribunal has not considered this fact at all. I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned Tribunal ought to have considered this fact that neither the passengers were examined, nor the cash was checked. Therefore, the order of the learned Tribunal cannot be sustained in the eye of law." (Emphasis added) 15. The High Court has decided the Writ Petition only on the ground that the passengers found without tickets, had not been examined and the cash with the employee was not checked. No other reasoning has been given whatsoever by the Court. 16.
Therefore, the order of the learned Tribunal cannot be sustained in the eye of law." (Emphasis added) 15. The High Court has decided the Writ Petition only on the ground that the passengers found without tickets, had not been examined and the cash with the employee was not checked. No other reasoning has been given whatsoever by the Court. 16. In State of Haryana & Anr. v. Rattan Singh, AIR 1977 SC 1512 , this Court has categorically held that in a domestic enquiry, complicated principles and procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 do not apply. The only right of a delinquent employee is that he must be informed as to what are the charges against him and he must be given full opportunity to defend himself on the said charges. However, the Court rejected the contention that enquiry report stood vitiated for not recording the statement of the passengers who were found travelling without ticket. The Court held as under: "5... We cannot hold that merely because statements of passengers were not recorded the order that followed was invalid. Likewise, the re-evaluation of the evidence on the strength of co-conductor's testimony is a matter not for the court but for the administrative tribunal. In conclusion, we do not think courts below were right in over-turning the finding of the domestic tribunal." 17. In view of the above, the reasoning so given by the High Court cannot be sustained in the eye of law. More so, the High Court is under an obligation to give not only the reasons but cogent reasons while reversing the findings of fact recorded by a domestic tribunal. In case the judgment and order of the High Court is found not duly supported by reasons, the judgment itself stands vitiated. (Vide State of Maharashtra v. Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan, AIR 1982 SC 1215 ; State of U.P. v. Battan & Ors., (2001) 10 SCC 607 ); Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar & Ors., AIR 2003 SC 4664 ; and State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar, AIR 2004 SC 1794 . 18. In State of West Bengal v. Atul Krishna Shaw & Anr., AIR 1990 SC 2205 , this Court observed that (SCC P.421 P.7) "7... Giving of reasons is an essential element of administration of justice.
18. In State of West Bengal v. Atul Krishna Shaw & Anr., AIR 1990 SC 2205 , this Court observed that (SCC P.421 P.7) "7... Giving of reasons is an essential element of administration of justice. A right to reason is, therefore, an indispensable part of sound system of judicial review." In State of Uttaranchal & Anr. v. Sunil Kumar Singh Negi, AIR 2008 SC 2026 , this Court held as under (SCC P. 208 para 11): "11. 8 Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system; reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made". 19. In Raj Kishore Jha (supra), this Court observed as under (SCC p.527 Para 19): "19. Before we part with the case, we feel it necessary to indicate that non-reasoned conclusions by appellate Courts are not appropriate, more so, when views of the lower Court are differed from. In case of concurrence, the need to again repeat reasons may not be there. It is not so in case of reversal. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. Without the same, it becomes lifeless". In fact: "47....reasons are the links between the material, the foundation for these erection and the actual conclusions. They would also administer how the mind of the maker was activated and actuated and their rational nexus and synthesis with the facts considered and the conclusion reached". (Vide Krishna Swami V. Union of India SCC P.637 para 47) 20. Therefore, the law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that, while deciding the case, court is under an obligation to record reasons, however, brief, the same may be as it is a requirement of principles of natural justice. Non-observance of the said principle would vitiate the judicial order. Thus, in view of the above, the judgment and order of the High Court impugned herein is liable to be set aside. 21. We do not find any force in the submissions made by Dr.
Non-observance of the said principle would vitiate the judicial order. Thus, in view of the above, the judgment and order of the High Court impugned herein is liable to be set aside. 21. We do not find any force in the submissions made by Dr. J.N. Dubey, learned Senior counsel for the employee that for embezzlement of such a petty amount, punishment of dismissal could not be justified for the reason that it is not the amount embezzled by a delinquent employee but the mens rea to misappropriate the public money. 22. In Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh v. Krishnan Bihari & Ors., SCC P.715 Para 4, this Court held as under:- "4. In a case of such nature - indeed, in cases involving corruption - there cannot be any other punishment than dismissal. Any sympathy shown in such cases is totally uncalled for and opposed to public interest. The amount misappropriated may be small or large; it is the act of misappropriation that is relevant." Similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Ruston & Hornsby (I) Ltd. v. T.B. Kadam, AIR 1975 SC 2025; U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Basudeo Chaudhary & Anr., (1997) 11 SCC 370 ; Janatha Bazar (South Kanara Central Cooperative Wholesale Stores Ltd.) & Ors. v. Secretary, Sahakari Noukarara Sangha & Ors., (2000) 7 SCC 517 ; Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. B.S. Hullikatti, AIR 2001 SC 930 ; and Regional Manager, R.S.R.T.C. v. Ghanshyam Sharma, (2002) 10 SCC 330. 23. In N.E.K.R.T.C. v. H. Amaresh, AIR 2006 SC 2730 ; and U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Vinod Kumar, (2008) 1 SCC 115 , this Court held that the punishment should always be proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. However, in a case of corruption/misappropriation, the only punishment is dismissal." 31. In this background the situation, which emerges in the present case is as under: "(a) Inquiry is found to be legal fair. (b) The learned Labour Court has also found that findings of the Inquiry Officer are just, correct and legal and they are not perverse. (c) The allegations against the petitioner are of misappropriation of the amount/tickets fair inasmuch as according to the charge-sheet, the petitioner received the amount towards the ticket fair, but did not issue ticket to four passengers. Such allegations/charge of misappropriation is of serious and grave nature.
(c) The allegations against the petitioner are of misappropriation of the amount/tickets fair inasmuch as according to the charge-sheet, the petitioner received the amount towards the ticket fair, but did not issue ticket to four passengers. Such allegations/charge of misappropriation is of serious and grave nature. (d) Past record of the petitioner reflects total 16 defaults out of which 12 defaults are in respect of the misconduct of similar nature. (e) The statements of two passengers recorded by the squad bring out that the passengers mentioned in their statements asserted that they had paid fair but tickets were not issued. (f) Besides other material and evidence, the clinching evidence is the petitioner's statement where the petitioner himself admitted that he had received the amount, but not issued tickets. In his statement, the petitioner also accepted that the statements of the passengers were recorded in his presence." 32. In view of the said details and facts, the petitioner's contention that since cash bag was not checked the findings should be aside, cannot be sustained. 33. Now, so far as above charge is concerned, it is to be noted that the learned Labour Court has taken into account and discussed above mentioned aspect including past service record of the petitioner, the statements of the passengers and the learned Labour Court has also taken into account the fact that the bus was checked after it had travelled for about 50 to 60 Kms. from Ahmedabad i.e. starting destination and therefore, there was no justification for not issuing tickets after receiving the amount/fair. Having considered all aspects, the learned Labour Court reached to the conclusion that the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is just and proper and commensurate with proved misconduct. The learned Labour Court reached to the conclusion that there was no justification to interfere with the order of the Authorities. Consequently, the learned Labour Court dismissed the Reference. 34. When the award is examined in light of above discussed aspect, it comes out clearly that the award does not suffer from any error or infirmity and conclusion of the learned Labour Court are supported by reasons which in turn, have supported of evidence on record. No ground to interfere with the decision of the learned Labour Court is made out.
No ground to interfere with the decision of the learned Labour Court is made out. Learned advocate for the petitioner could not make out any case to convince this Court to take different view than the view taken by the learned Labour Court and/or to interfere with the award and to set aside the award as well as orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority, First Appellate Authority and Second Appellate Authority. In the result, the petition fails and deserves to be rejected and accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.