U P STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. MUNIRUDDIN
LAWS(SC)-1990-8-54
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on August 17,1990

U P STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Appellant
VERSUS
MUNIRUDDIN Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SOHAN SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SUNDARAM MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. AMEERJAN [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

MOHAMMAD RAUF UL AZAM VS. VICE CHANCELLOR ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY ALIGARH [LAWS(ALL)-1992-3-15] [REFERRED TO]
AMRIT DEWAN VS. ASSAM STATE CO OPERATIVE MARKETING and CONSUMER FEDERATION LTD [LAWS(GAU)-2003-12-21] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD RAUF-UL-AZAM VS. VICE-CHANCELLOR ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY ALIGARH [LAWS(ALL)-1992-3-23] [REFERRED TO]
BANK OF BARODA VS. VIRSEN SANTHRAM PRADHAN [LAWS(BOM)-2001-2-78] [REFERRED TO]
N CHIRTRARASAN VS. INSPECTOR OF SWS CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE [LAWS(MAD)-2006-9-173] [REFERRED TO]
SAHADEO S O PUNAJI BISNE VS. MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT [LAWS(BOM)-2005-10-39] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY KUMAR SHARMA VS. PUNJAB AND SIND BANK [LAWS(DLH)-2011-8-370] [REFERRED TO]
H M TRIVEDI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-1991-10-18] [REFERRED]
PRAFULLA S SHETTY VS. VIJAYA BANK [LAWS(BOM)-2006-8-82] [REFERRED TO]
R MAHALINGAN VS. CHAIRMAN TAMIL NADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSIONER [LAWS(MAD)-2010-2-11] [DISTINGUISHED]
KUMARI SURYA SHUKLA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2007-4-416] [REFERRED TO]
HARI SINGH AND MOTI LAL VS. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANR. [LAWS(RAJ)-1991-5-58] [REFERRED TO]
KHALIL KHAN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2010-4-186] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD RAUF-UL-AZAM VS. VICE-CHANCELLOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, ALIGARH [LAWS(ALL)-1992-3-88] [REFERRED]
HARYANA VIDYUT PARSARAN NIGAM LTD. AND ANOTHER VS. RAJNISH GARG [LAWS(P&H)-2002-3-99] [REFERRED]
R D PARTEKI VS. STATE OF M P AND ANOTHER [LAWS(MPH)-2018-4-410] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)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 litigation for over 16 years. The respondent was a bus conductor in U. P. State Road Transport Corporation ('corporation for short). A trap was laid against him and a disciplinary enquiry was initiated and dismissal order was passed on 23/03/1965. 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 dismissed by the appellate court. Relentless as he was, he carried the 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.
(2.)On behalf of the Corporation it is contended that the High court 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.
(3.)One of the main issues framed before the trial court was whether 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 respondent 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 intended to inspect the carbon copies and made a request by way of a letter. However, the carbon copies of the way-bills dated January 7, 8 and 10, 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 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 was shown the originals and also on the ground that he did not later insist on those carbon copies shown to him. The High court, however, in an elaborate judgment referred to the various documents and it ultimately reached the conclusion that the important documents 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 rate it is a question of fact, the High court erred in interfering in the second 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 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 copies. 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 documents and if a carbon copy of the way-bills had been shown, the authority may well have been convinced that the charge levelled 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.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.