RAVANI, CJ. - (1.) HELD - In the instant case the disciplinary authority has made no attempt to ascertain as to what will be the just penalty in the facts and circumstances of the case. The disciplinary authority was under an obligation as per the provisions of the Standing Orders to indicate "good and sufficient reasons" before passing appropriate order of punishment. In the instant case no attempt is made to ascertain as to what would be the just penalty. As indicated hereinabove, the learned counsel for the respondent Corporation has not been able to place any material before the Court to show that the competent authority had "good and sufficient reasons" to choose the penalty of removal from service and forfeiture of wages for the period of suspension. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the disciplinary authority has discharged the quasi judicial function in the manner required by law. It has got to be held that the disciplinary authority has not applied his mind to the most important function. Therefore, the order is nullity and the same is required to be quashed and set aside.
(2.) THIS brings us "to the question of penalty. The learned counsel for the respondent Corporation submitted that the matter may be remanded to the disciplinary authority for considering the question of penalty. Ordinarily we would have adopted this course but it would not be just and proper to adopt this course in this case. Be it realised that the mis-conduct alleged against the workman is of the year 1978. The workman was ordered to be dismissed from Service in July, 1978 without holding enquiry. The Labour Court quashed and set aside the order of dismissal from service and directed that the workman be reinstated. After reinstatement of the workman in the year 1981, on the same charges of mis-conduct, fresh enquiry was held by the respondent Corporation. At the conclusion of the enquiry by order dated April 12, 1982 the Petitioner workman has been ordered to be removed from service and the amount of wages for the period of suspension has been forfeited. The petitioner workman sought to raise industrial dispute but the Government without any justification and contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Avtar Sharma (supra) and in the case of Telco Convoy Drivers' Mazdoor Sangh (supra) refused to make reference. Thereafter the petitioner approached this Court by filing the writ petition in the year 1984. In this petition for a period of more than a decade the respondent Corporation did not file reply. Ultimately the petition has been decided on September, 28, 1994. Now the appeal is being decided in the month of May, 1995. THIS resume of the protracted litigation shows that the petitioner workman has suffered pangs of litigation. He must have suffered anxiety and anguish of the litigation and must have incurred heavy expenditure without there being any regular source of earning. If the matter is remanded now after such a long time it would not meet the ends of justice but it would certainly amount to denial of justice to the workman. After all as observed by Supreme Court in the case of Bhagat Ram vs. State of H. P. (AIR 1983 SC 454) what is the purpose of remand of the case to the competent authority? Obviously the purpose is to impose some penalty upon the petitioner workman. In the facts and circumstances of the case it would be just and proper that the High Court in exercise of its powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution imposes appropriate penalty without prolonging the matter. For these reasons the request for remand of the matter to the disciplinary authority is rejected. This brings us to the question of penalty. Even if one were to hold that the mis-conduct alleged against the workman of allowing passengers to travel without ticket on three different occasions and not making entry in the way bill and to allow the bus to proceed further without handing over the way bill to the driver are held proved, then also there is nothing to indicate that the workman recovered the ticket charges from the passengers and misappropriated the same for his own use. The charges of mis-conduct even if held proved may amount to serious lapse and negligence on the part of the petitioner workman. There is nothing on record to show that the workman was guilty of such misconduct in past. In our opinion if a lesser penalty other than that of removal from service and forfeiture of wages for the period of suspension is imposed it would not jeopardise the interest of the employer i. e. the RSRTC. Even if one were to infer by stretching the reasons that the petitioner workman was guilty of recovering the ticket charges from the passengers, then also the mis-conduct is required to be dealt with sympathy. A penalty of removal from service is not called for. A workman brought up and living in an atmosphere of poverty and want when faced with temptation may yield to it in a moment of weakness. We hasten to observe that one should not yield to such temptation, but it has got to be understood and viewed with sympathy much more so in an age when even the rich commit economic offences to get richer and do so by and large with impunity. In this connection we may refer to decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranjeet Thakur vs. Union of India (AIR 1987 SC 2386 ). In the aforesaid decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court has inter alia, observed that irrationality and perversity (of punishment) are recognised grounds of judicial review. The Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to its earlier decision in the case of Bhagat Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in (AIR 1983 SC 454 ). Therein at page 460 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has inter alia observed as follows : - "it is equally true that the penalty imposed must be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct and that any penalty disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct would be violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. " After reiterating the aforesaid principle, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajneet Thakur (supra) further observed : - "the point to note and emphasise is that all powers have legal limits. " In this case the competent authority has exercised the power of imposing penalty without recognising the limits of the powers and the manner in which it was required to be exercised. Requirement to indicate good and sufficient reasons for selecting particular penalty, is itself a sufficient check on the exercise of power in unjust, unreasonable and/or arbitrary manner. In view of this settled legal position and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that it would be proper to pass an appropriate order of penalty by this Court. As indicated hereinabove, the workman has suffered the pangs of protracted litigation. Practically he is out of job since 1978 except with a break of few months during the years 1981-82. Having regard to the over all facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that imposition of penalty of withholding of three increments with future effect will meet the ends of justice. It may be noted that withholding of three increments with future effect will have cascading effect and it will even affect the amount of terminal benefits which may be received by the petitioner workman. So far as the back wages are concerned, we are of the opinion that payment of 50% of the back wages would be just and proper. It may be realised that during the course of 12-15 years (from 1978 to 1995) the intrinsic value of money has been considerably eroded. The payment of 50% of the back wages now, after a period of more than a decade would have considerably less intrinsic value. Thus the payment of 50% of the back wages would not in fact be payment of 50% of the back wages in real terms. It would be considerably less.
(3.) IN the result, the appeal filed by the Corporation being D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 795 of 1994, is dismissed, the appeal filed by the petitioner workman being D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 210/94 is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge is modified and the decision of the learned Single Judge holding that the order of punishment was not just and proper is confirmed but for different reasons as indicated in the body of the judgment. The penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority of removal from service and forfeiture of wages for the period of suspension is quashed and set aside. INstead, the penalty of withholding of three increments with future effect is imposed and the workman is ordered to be reinstated in service immediately, latest by May 31, 1995. If the workman is not actually reinstated in service by the aforesaid date he shall be entitled to claim full wages from June 1, 1995. The workman shall be paid 50% of the back wages by calculating the same as if he was throughout in service during the interregnum period and was entitled to all the benefits which he would have earned had he been in service. The calculation of the 50% of the amount of wages and other monetary benefits payable to the workman as indicated hereinabove shall be made by the respondent Corporation immediately and the amount shall be paid to the workman latest by July 31, 1995. If the amount is not paid by the aforesaid date, it shall carry interest @ 15% per annum from the date of this judgment till the amount is paid. The appeal of the petitioner workman stands allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs. .;