RAJASTHAN STATE TPT CORPN. Vs. BAJRANG LAL
LAWS(SC)-2014-3-23
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: RAJASTHAN)
Decided on
March 14,2014
Rajasthan State Tpt Corpn.
Appellant
VERSUS
BAJRANG LAL
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
PRATIVA DEVI V. T.V. KRISHNAN [REFERRED TO]RUSTON AND HORNSBY I LIMITED VS. T B KADAM [REFERRED TO]
PREMIER AUTOMOBILES LIMITED AUTOMATIC ELECTRIC PVT LIMITED VS. KAMLEKAR SHANTARAM WADKE OF BOMBAY :ENGINEERING MAZDOOR SABHA [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH SINGH VS. NATTHU SINGH [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE BAHADURGARH VS. KRISHNAN BEHARI [REFERRED TO]
U P STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. BASUDEO CHAUDHARY [REFERRED TO]
UTTAM DAS CHELA SUNDER DAS VS. SHIROMANI GURDWARA PARBANDHAK COMMITTEE AMRITSAR [REFERRED TO]
LARSEN AND TOUBRO LIMITED VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
SATYA GUPTA ALIAS MADHU GUPTA VS. BRUESH KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION NATIONAL BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION VS. S RAGHUNATHAN:S P SINGH [REFERRED TO]
RAM NARAIN ARORA VS. ASHA RANI [REFERRED TO]
RAGAVENDRA KUMAR VS. FIRM PREM MACHINARY AND CO [REFERRED TO]
MOLAR MAL DEAD VS. KAY IRON WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
JANATHA BAZAR SOUTH KANARA CENTRAL CO OPERATIVE WHOLE SALE STORES LIMITED VS. SECRETARY SAHKARI NOUKARARA SANGHA [REFERRED TO]
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. B S HULLIKATTI [REFERRED TO]
CHITRA KUMARI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. CHANDRA PRAKASH PANDEY [REFERRED TO]
ATUL CASTINGS LIMITED VS. BAWA GURVACHAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
REGIONAL MANAGER RSRTC VS. GHANSHYAM SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
JAI SINGH VS. SHAKUNTALA [REFERRED TO]
VITHAL N SHETTI VS. PRAKASH N RUDRAKAR [REFERRED TO]
DEVA SAHAYAM VS. P SAVITHRAMMA [REFERRED TO]
SAIT NAGJEE PURUSHOTHAM and CO LTD VS. VIMALABAI PRABHULAL [REFERRED TO]
KASHMIR SINGH VS. HARNAM SINGH [REFERRED TO]
RAJASTHAN SRTC VS. MOHAR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT VS. BAL MUKUND BAIRWA [REFERRED TO]
RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. DEEN DAYAL SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
BHARATHA MATHA VS. R VIJAYA RENGANATHAN [REFERRED TO]
UP STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. SURESH CHAND SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
DINESH KUMAR VS. YUSUF ALI [REFERRED TO]
RAJASTHAN PRADESH V S SARDARSHAHAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
RITESH TEWARI VS. STATE OF UP [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. IBRAHIM UDDIN [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
SHIV KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS [LAWS(HPH)-2016-6-260] [REFERRED TO]SINCLAIRS HOTELS LTD. VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & OTHERS [LAWS(CAL)-2017-1-41] [REFERRED TO]
DEVENDRA KUMAR MALIK VS. DIRECTOR GENERAL RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2019-2-137] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDAMBA AND 3 OTHERS VS. JAI NATH SINGH AND 23 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-5-653] [REFERRED TO]
RAJPAL SHARMA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2023-9-54] [REFERRED TO]
HARPREET SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2016-10-65] [REFERRED TO]
U.P.S.R.T.C. VS. RAJENDRA PRASAD [LAWS(ALL)-2019-8-195] [REFERRED TO]
RUKAN SINGH VS. MAHENDRA SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2022-9-90] [REFERRED TO]
SHASHIKUMAR VS. VIJAYKUMAR [LAWS(BOM)-2022-3-125] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF TELCO (TATA ENGINEERING & LOCOMOTIVE COMPANY LTD ) NOW TATA MOTORS LTD VS. K C BANDHOPADHYAY [LAWS(JHAR)-2017-8-94] [REFERRED TO]
BISWANATH DAS VS. KESHAB DUBEY & ORS [LAWS(CAL)-2017-12-21] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH KUMAR BANKA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2014-11-58] [REFERRED TO]
MURARILAL AGRAWAL VS. RASHMI KESHARWANI [LAWS(CHH)-2016-8-27] [REFERRED]
RAMJI LAL LAKHERA VS. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-7-184] [REFERRED TO]
RAMJI LAL LAKHERA VS. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANR. [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-2-203] [REFERRED TO]
DIWAN SINGH VS. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2015-1-1] [REFERRED TO]
KARNATAKA STATE MEDICAL AND SALES REPRESENTATIVES ASSOCIATION VS. ASTRA ZENECA PHARMA INDIA LTD [LAWS(KAR)-2022-5-21] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY KUMAR SHARMA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-5-93] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA AGRAWAL VS. RASHMI KESHARWANI [LAWS(CHH)-2016-8-28] [REFERRED]
BIJENDRA PAL VS. PARIVAHAN NIGAM MUKHYALAYA, LUCKNOW [LAWS(ALL)-2019-8-66] [REFERRED TO]
PREM NARAIN KHANNA VS. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA THRU A G M AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-9-430] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH CHANDRA VS. RITESH BHARGAWA [LAWS(ALL)-2020-8-20] [REFERRED TO]
RISHIKESH VS. HARIKESH [LAWS(ALL)-2018-12-172] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. MADHUP KUMAR [LAWS(ALL)-2017-4-130] [REFERRED TO]
TANAJI GULABGIR GOSAVI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2019-9-182] [REFERRED TO]
N R KRISHNAMURTHY RAJA VS. GURUVA RAJA [LAWS(MAD)-2018-7-503] [REFERRED TO]
SATISH KUMAR VS. NARESH KUMAR [LAWS(P&H)-2021-4-120] [REFERRED TO]
SHRIRAM CITY UNION FINANCE LTD. VS. K.SELVAM [LAWS(MAD)-2021-5-25] [REFERRED TO]
PADAM SAIN VS. MEENA AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2017-1-58] [REFERRED TO]
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF CHASNALLA COLLIERY OF TISCO STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. VS. THEIR WORKMEN TARKESHWAR PRASAD [LAWS(JHAR)-2015-9-143] [REFERRED TO]
ARUN KUMAR PRASAD VS. SINGHBHUM CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD WEST SINGHBHUM [LAWS(JHAR)-2017-4-134] [REFERRED TO]
KEWAL RAM VS. MURAT SINGH [LAWS(HPH)-2017-12-26] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA VS. U.P. STATE PUBLIC SERVICES TRIBUNAL [LAWS(ALL)-2017-2-220] [REFERRED TO]
KEWAL RAM VS. MURAT SINGH [LAWS(HPH)-2016-12-230] [REFERRED TO]
JHAMAN DAS VS. RAMESH CHAND [LAWS(RAJ)-2014-5-206] [REFERRED TO]
SRI DURGA KALA MANDIR VS. S. PULLA RAO [LAWS(APH)-2014-10-128] [REFERRED TO]
SHAMSHER BAHADUR VS. BOARD OF DIRECTORS, FARRUKHABAD GRAMIN BANK THROUGH CHAIRMAN [LAWS(ALL)-2016-9-408] [REFERRED TO]
MADANKUWAR AND ORS. VS. SUSHILA AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2016-4-25] [REFERRED TO]
SANTA DAS VS. KISHORE KUMAR BURMAN [LAWS(CAL)-2015-2-104] [REFERRED TO]
AIJAZ HUSSAIN SAHAF. VS. STATE OF J&K AND ORS. [LAWS(J&K)-2017-4-26] [REFERRED TO]
DINESH KUMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS [LAWS(JHAR)-2018-1-230] [REFERRED TO]
S THIRUMENI ALIAS BAKIAVATHI VS. MARUTHANAYAGAM; SHANMUGA THEVAR; BAKKIATHAI; DURAISINGH [LAWS(MAD)-2015-3-720] [REFERRED]
NANAK CHAND VS. DAYA RAM [LAWS(UTN)-2021-1-62] [REFERRED TO]
MEGHMALLAR ESTATES & SERVICES PVT. LTD. AND ORS. VS. GHANASHYAM TALUKDAR [LAWS(GAU)-2015-7-47] [REFERRED TO]
SHER SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2016-4-56] [REFERRED TO]
VASANT H. JAYAWANT BHASME VS. SHANKARARAO BHIMRAO BHASME [LAWS(KAR)-2017-6-33] [REFERRED TO]
THE LAWRENCE SCHOOL AND ORS. VS. THE PRESIDING OFFICER AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2015-6-81] [REFERRED TO]
ISMAIL ADAM KHAN VS. KASHINATH GOVIND NAIK [LAWS(BOM)-2017-5-199] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)This appeal has been preferred by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'Corporation') against the judgment and order dated 8.11.2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan (Jaipur Bench) in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 449 of 2003 upholding the judgment and decree dated 28.1.2003 in Civil Regular Appeal No. 119 of 2002 passed by Additional District Judge, Jaipur, by which and whereunder, it has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 30.11.1994 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) No. 2, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 1346 of 1988.
(2.)Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that:
A. The respondent while working as a trainee conductor on daily basis was found carrying certain passengers without tickets and, thus, an enquiry was initiated against him. Two chargesheets dated 11.3.1988 were served upon him. In the first chargesheet, it was alleged that on 24.2.1988 while he was on duty enroute Kota-Rajpura, when his bus was checked, it was found that 10 passengers were traveling without tickets, though he had collected the fare from each of them. In the second chargesheet, it had been alleged that when he was on duty on route Kota-Neemuch, his bus was checked and he was found carrying two passengers traveling on tickets of lesser amount though, he had collected the full fare from them. The respondent submitted separate reply to the said chargesheets which were not found satisfactory. Therefore, the enquiry officer was appointed to enquire into the matter and a regular enquiry ensued. The enquiry officer after conclusion of the enquiry submitted the report holding that charges leveled against the respondent in both the chargesheets stood proved against him.
B. After considering the report, the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 5.8.1988 passed order of punishment of removal from the service. The respondent filed a Civil Suit on 2.9.1988 challenging the order of removal alleging that he was not supplied with the documents referred to in the chargesheets, nor was given the enquiry report nor other documents. More so, the quantum of punishment was disproportionate to the proved delinquency.
C. The Suit was contested by the appellants denying all the averments made therein. However, on conclusion of the trial, the Suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 30.11.1994.
D. Aggrieved, the Corporation filed Civil Regular Appeal No. 119 of 2002, which stood dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 28.1.2003. E. The Corporation challenged both the aforesaid judgments by filing Regular Second Appeal No. 449 of 2003, which also stood dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree.
Hence, this appeal.
(3.)Shri S. K. Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, has submitted that none of the courts below have examined the case in correct perspective. The stand taken by the appellants that the Suit itself was not maintainable, as the only remedy available to the respondent was to approach the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act 1947') has not been properly examined by the courts below. More so, the pleadings in the plaint were vague. The respondent/plaintiff failed to prove any of the allegations made in the plaint, therefore, the courts below have erred in holding that the enquiry stood vitiated due to violation of statutory provisions and principles of natural justice. The enquiry had been conducted strictly in accordance with law, the provisions of Section 35 of the Standing Order have been fully complied with and the respondent was given full opportunity to defend himself. Therefore, the findings of fact recorded by the courts below in this respect are perverse. The respondent was found to have embezzled money of the corporation and the punishment of dismissal cannot be held to be disproportionate to the proved delinquency. Thus, the appeal deserves to be allowed.
(2.)Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that:
A. The respondent while working as a trainee conductor on daily basis was found carrying certain passengers without tickets and, thus, an enquiry was initiated against him. Two chargesheets dated 11.3.1988 were served upon him. In the first chargesheet, it was alleged that on 24.2.1988 while he was on duty enroute Kota-Rajpura, when his bus was checked, it was found that 10 passengers were traveling without tickets, though he had collected the fare from each of them. In the second chargesheet, it had been alleged that when he was on duty on route Kota-Neemuch, his bus was checked and he was found carrying two passengers traveling on tickets of lesser amount though, he had collected the full fare from them. The respondent submitted separate reply to the said chargesheets which were not found satisfactory. Therefore, the enquiry officer was appointed to enquire into the matter and a regular enquiry ensued. The enquiry officer after conclusion of the enquiry submitted the report holding that charges leveled against the respondent in both the chargesheets stood proved against him.
B. After considering the report, the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 5.8.1988 passed order of punishment of removal from the service. The respondent filed a Civil Suit on 2.9.1988 challenging the order of removal alleging that he was not supplied with the documents referred to in the chargesheets, nor was given the enquiry report nor other documents. More so, the quantum of punishment was disproportionate to the proved delinquency.
C. The Suit was contested by the appellants denying all the averments made therein. However, on conclusion of the trial, the Suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 30.11.1994.
D. Aggrieved, the Corporation filed Civil Regular Appeal No. 119 of 2002, which stood dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 28.1.2003. E. The Corporation challenged both the aforesaid judgments by filing Regular Second Appeal No. 449 of 2003, which also stood dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree.
Hence, this appeal.
(3.)Shri S. K. Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, has submitted that none of the courts below have examined the case in correct perspective. The stand taken by the appellants that the Suit itself was not maintainable, as the only remedy available to the respondent was to approach the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act 1947') has not been properly examined by the courts below. More so, the pleadings in the plaint were vague. The respondent/plaintiff failed to prove any of the allegations made in the plaint, therefore, the courts below have erred in holding that the enquiry stood vitiated due to violation of statutory provisions and principles of natural justice. The enquiry had been conducted strictly in accordance with law, the provisions of Section 35 of the Standing Order have been fully complied with and the respondent was given full opportunity to defend himself. Therefore, the findings of fact recorded by the courts below in this respect are perverse. The respondent was found to have embezzled money of the corporation and the punishment of dismissal cannot be held to be disproportionate to the proved delinquency. Thus, the appeal deserves to be allowed.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.