1
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No. 18448 of 2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil ) No.4012 of
2017)
Uttarakhand Transport Corporation
(Earlier known as U.P.S.R.T.C.) & Ors. .... Appellants
Versus
Sukhveer Singh ….Respondent
J U D G M E N T
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.
Leave granted.
This Appeal is filed by the employer against the
judgment of the High Court by which the order of dismissal
of the Respondent- driver from service was set aside by the
High Court.
2. The Respondent was appointed as a driver with the
Appellants- Road Transport Corporation in the year 1989.
On 27th October, 1995 while driving a vehicle on
2
Karnal-Haridwar route, the Respondent did not stop the
vehicle when the inspection team signalled. The
inspection team had to follow the vehicle which was
stopped six kilometres away from where it was signalled
to stop. On verification, it was found that 61 passengers
were travelling without a ticket. The Respondent was
placed under suspension on 31st October, 1995 and
disciplinary proceedings were initiated by issuance of a
charge sheet on 3rd November, 1995. The Respondent
submitted his explanation after which an inquiry was
conducted by the Assistant Regional Manager, Haridwar.
After considering the material on record, the inquiry
officer found that the charges against the Respondent
were proved. The inquiry officer relied upon the
admission of the Respondent that though there was a
signal by the inspecting team to stop the vehicle at
Bidouli, he stopped the vehicle only after driving for two
kilometres. The explanation given by the Respondent
that he drove the vehicle due to a call given by the
conductor was not accepted by the inquiry officer. It was
held that the Respondent was duty bound to stop the
vehicle when a signal was given by the inspecting team.
3
The inquiry officer further held that the Respondent
colluded with the conductor and did not stop the vehicle
as there were a number of ticketless passengers in the
bus. The disciplinary authority issued a show cause
notice on 26th December, 1996 along with which the
inquiry report was supplied to the Respondent. Not
satisfied with the explanation submitted by the
Respondent to the show cause notice, the disciplinary
authority dismissed him from service by an order dated
23rd April, 1997. The appellate authority dismissed the
appeal filed by the Respondent on 25th July, 2000.
3. A reference was made to the labour court which was
answered in favour of the Respondent on 15th November,
2007. The writ petition filed by the Respondent
challenging the award of the labour court was allowed by
the High Court and the labour court was directed to
reconsider the matter. After remand, the labour court by
an award dated 12th September, 2011 upheld the order of
dismissal of the Respondent from service. The
Respondent challenged the award of the labour court by
filing a writ petition in the High Court of Uttarakhand at
Nainital. The High Court while relying upon a judgment of
4
this Court in Managing Director ECIL Hyderabad &
Ors. v. B. Karunakar & Ors.1
allowed the writ petition
and set aside the dismissal order. The High Court
directed that the Respondent should be deemed to be in
service with all consequential benefits. Assailing the
legality of the said judgment of the High Court, the
Appellants have approached this Court.
4. It is contended on behalf of the Appellants that the
impugned judgment is contrary to the law laid down in
Managing Director ECIL Hyderabad & Ors. v. B.
Karunakar & Ors. (supra). It is further submitted that
a copy of the inquiry report was in fact supplied to the
Respondent. The other point that was canvassed by the
Appellants is that the Respondent neither pleaded nor
proved that any prejudice was caused to him by the
non-supply of the inquiry report prior to the issuance of
show cause notice. The counsel for the Respondent
supported the judgment of the High Court by submitting
that it was incumbent upon the disciplinary authority to
supply the inquiry report prior to the issuance of the show
cause notice as per the judgment of this Court in
1 (1993) 4 SCC 727
5
Managing Director ECIL Hyderabad & Ors. v. B.
Karunakar & Ors. (supra). He also relied upon certain
findings in the inquiry report which were in favour of the
Respondent. He finally submitted that the punishment of
dismissal from service is disproportionate to the
delinquency.
5. The award of the labour court was set aside by the High
Court on the sole ground that non-supply of the inquiry
report prior to the show cause notice vitiated the
disciplinary proceedings. The High Court, in our opinion,
committed an error in its interpretation of the judgment
in Managing Director ECIL Hyderabad & Ors. v. B.
Karunakar & Ors. (supra). It is no doubt true that this
Court in the said judgment held that a delinquent
employee has a right to receive the report of the inquiry
officer before the disciplinary authority takes a decision
regarding his guilt or innocence. Denial of a reasonable
opportunity to the employee by not furnishing the inquiry
report before such decision on the charges was found to
be in violation of principles of natural justice. In the
instant case, the disciplinary authority communicated the
report of the inquiry officer to the Respondent along with
6
the show cause notice. There is no dispute that the
Respondent submitted his reply to the show cause notice
after receiving the report of the inquiry officer. On
considering the explanation submitted by the
Respondent, the disciplinary authority passed an order of
dismissal. Though, it was necessary for the Appellants to
have supplied the report of the inquiry officer before
issuance of the show cause notice proposing penalty, we
find no reason to hold that the Respondent was
prejudiced by supply of the inquiry officer’s report along
with the show cause notice. This is not a case where the
delinquent was handicapped due to the inquiry officer’s
report not being furnished to him at all. In Managing
Director ECIL Hyderabad & Ors. v. B. Karunakar &
Ors. (supra) this Court, while considering the effect on
the order of punishment when the report of the inquiry
officer was not furnished to the employee and the relief
to which the delinquent employee is entitled, held as
under:
[v] ……..When the employee is dismissed or
removed from service and the inquiry is set aside
because the report is not furnished to him, in some
cases the non-furnishing of the report may have
prejudiced him gravely while in other cases it may
7
have made no difference to the ultimate punishment
awarded to him. Hence to direct reinstatement of the
employee with back-wages in all cases is to reduce
the rules of justice to a mechanical ritual. The theory
of reasonable opportunity and the principles of
natural justice have been evolved to uphold the rule
of law and to assist the individual to vindicate his
just rights. They are not incantations to be invoked
nor rites to be performed on all and sundry
occasions. Whether in fact, prejudice has been
caused to the employee or not on account of the
denial to him of the report, has to be considered on
the facts and circumstances of each case. Where,
therefore, even after the furnishing of the report, no
different consequence would have followed, it would
be a perversion of justice to permit the employee to
resume duty and to get all the consequential
benefits. It amounts to rewarding the dishonest and
the guilty and thus to stretching the concept of
justice to illogical and exasperating limits. It amounts
to an “unnatural expansion of natural justice” which
in itself is antithetical to justice.
6. The question of the relief to be granted in cases where
the report of the inquiry officer was not supplied to the
delinquent employee came up for consideration of this
Court in Haryana Financial Corpn. v. Kailash
Chandra Ahuja2
in which it was held as follows:
21. From the ratio laid down in B.
Karunakar [(1993) 4 SCC 727] it is explicitly clear
that the doctrine of natural justice requires supply
of a copy of the inquiry officer's report to the
delinquent if such inquiry officer is other than the
disciplinary authority. It is also clear that
non-supply of report of the inquiry officer is in the
breach of natural justice. But it is equally clear that
failure to supply a report of the inquiry officer to the
delinquent employee would not ipso facto result in
the proceedings being declared null and void and
2 (2008) 9 SCC 31
8
the order of punishment non est and ineffective. It
is for the delinquent employee to plead and prove
that non-supply of such report had caused
prejudice and resulted in miscarriage of justice. If
he is unable to satisfy the court on that point, the
order of punishment cannot automatically be set
aside.
After a detailed examination of the law on the subject,
this Court concluded as follows:
44. From the aforesaid decisions, it is clear that
though supply of report of the inquiry officer is part
and parcel of natural justice and must be furnished
to the delinquent employee, failure to do so would
not automatically result in quashing or setting aside
of the order or the order being declared null and
void. For that, the delinquent employee has to show
“prejudice”. Unless he is able to show that
non-supply of report of the inquiry officer has
resulted in prejudice or miscarriage of justice, an
order of punishment cannot be held to be vitiated.
And whether prejudice had been caused to the
delinquent employee depends upon the facts and
circumstances of each case and no rule of universal
application can be laid down.
7. It is clear from the above that mere non-supply of the
inquiry report does not automatically warrant
re-instatement of the delinquent employee. It is
incumbent upon on the delinquent employee to plead and
prove that he suffered a serious prejudice due to the
non-supply of the inquiry report. We have examined the
writ petition filed by the Respondent and we find no
9
pleading regarding any prejudice caused to the
Respondent by the non-supply of the inquiry report prior
to the issuance of the show cause notice. The
Respondent had ample opportunity to submit his version
after perusing the report of the inquiry officer. The
Respondent utilised the opportunity of placing his
response to the inquiry report before the disciplinary
authority. The High Court committed an error in allowing
the writ petition filed by the Respondent without
examining whether any prejudice was caused to the
delinquent employee by the supply of the inquiry officer’s
report along with the show cause notice. We are satisfied
that there was no prejudice caused to the respondent by
the supply of the report of the inquiry officer along with
the show cause notice. Hence, no useful purpose will be
served by a remand to the court below to examine the
point of prejudice.
8. The Respondent contended that the punishment of
dismissal is disproportionate to the delinquency. It is
submitted that he was working as a driver and the
irregularity in issuance of tickets was committed by the
conductor. We are in agreement with the findings of the
10
inquiry officer which were accepted by the disciplinary
authority and approved by the appellate authority and
the labour court that the Respondent had committed the
misconduct in collusion with the conductor. It is no more
res integra that acts of corruption/misappropriation
cannot be condoned, even in cases where the amount
involved is meagre. (See - U.P.SRTC v. Suresh Chand
Sharma3
).
9. For the aforementioned reasons, we allow the appeal and
set aside the judgment of the High Court. No order as to
costs.
........................................J.
[ARUN MISHRA]
..
……................................J.
[L. NAGESWARA RAO]
New Delhi,
November 10, 2017.
3 (2010) 6 SCC 555 at Para 21-23
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No. 18448 of 2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil ) No.4012 of
2017)
Uttarakhand Transport Corporation
(Earlier known as U.P.S.R.T.C.) & Ors. .... Appellants
Versus
Sukhveer Singh ….Respondent
J U D G M E N T
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.
Leave granted.
This Appeal is filed by the employer against the
judgment of the High Court by which the order of dismissal
of the Respondent- driver from service was set aside by the
High Court.
2. The Respondent was appointed as a driver with the
Appellants- Road Transport Corporation in the year 1989.
On 27th October, 1995 while driving a vehicle on
2
Karnal-Haridwar route, the Respondent did not stop the
vehicle when the inspection team signalled. The
inspection team had to follow the vehicle which was
stopped six kilometres away from where it was signalled
to stop. On verification, it was found that 61 passengers
were travelling without a ticket. The Respondent was
placed under suspension on 31st October, 1995 and
disciplinary proceedings were initiated by issuance of a
charge sheet on 3rd November, 1995. The Respondent
submitted his explanation after which an inquiry was
conducted by the Assistant Regional Manager, Haridwar.
After considering the material on record, the inquiry
officer found that the charges against the Respondent
were proved. The inquiry officer relied upon the
admission of the Respondent that though there was a
signal by the inspecting team to stop the vehicle at
Bidouli, he stopped the vehicle only after driving for two
kilometres. The explanation given by the Respondent
that he drove the vehicle due to a call given by the
conductor was not accepted by the inquiry officer. It was
held that the Respondent was duty bound to stop the
vehicle when a signal was given by the inspecting team.
3
The inquiry officer further held that the Respondent
colluded with the conductor and did not stop the vehicle
as there were a number of ticketless passengers in the
bus. The disciplinary authority issued a show cause
notice on 26th December, 1996 along with which the
inquiry report was supplied to the Respondent. Not
satisfied with the explanation submitted by the
Respondent to the show cause notice, the disciplinary
authority dismissed him from service by an order dated
23rd April, 1997. The appellate authority dismissed the
appeal filed by the Respondent on 25th July, 2000.
3. A reference was made to the labour court which was
answered in favour of the Respondent on 15th November,
2007. The writ petition filed by the Respondent
challenging the award of the labour court was allowed by
the High Court and the labour court was directed to
reconsider the matter. After remand, the labour court by
an award dated 12th September, 2011 upheld the order of
dismissal of the Respondent from service. The
Respondent challenged the award of the labour court by
filing a writ petition in the High Court of Uttarakhand at
Nainital. The High Court while relying upon a judgment of
4
this Court in Managing Director ECIL Hyderabad &
Ors. v. B. Karunakar & Ors.1
allowed the writ petition
and set aside the dismissal order. The High Court
directed that the Respondent should be deemed to be in
service with all consequential benefits. Assailing the
legality of the said judgment of the High Court, the
Appellants have approached this Court.
4. It is contended on behalf of the Appellants that the
impugned judgment is contrary to the law laid down in
Managing Director ECIL Hyderabad & Ors. v. B.
Karunakar & Ors. (supra). It is further submitted that
a copy of the inquiry report was in fact supplied to the
Respondent. The other point that was canvassed by the
Appellants is that the Respondent neither pleaded nor
proved that any prejudice was caused to him by the
non-supply of the inquiry report prior to the issuance of
show cause notice. The counsel for the Respondent
supported the judgment of the High Court by submitting
that it was incumbent upon the disciplinary authority to
supply the inquiry report prior to the issuance of the show
cause notice as per the judgment of this Court in
1 (1993) 4 SCC 727
5
Managing Director ECIL Hyderabad & Ors. v. B.
Karunakar & Ors. (supra). He also relied upon certain
findings in the inquiry report which were in favour of the
Respondent. He finally submitted that the punishment of
dismissal from service is disproportionate to the
delinquency.
5. The award of the labour court was set aside by the High
Court on the sole ground that non-supply of the inquiry
report prior to the show cause notice vitiated the
disciplinary proceedings. The High Court, in our opinion,
committed an error in its interpretation of the judgment
in Managing Director ECIL Hyderabad & Ors. v. B.
Karunakar & Ors. (supra). It is no doubt true that this
Court in the said judgment held that a delinquent
employee has a right to receive the report of the inquiry
officer before the disciplinary authority takes a decision
regarding his guilt or innocence. Denial of a reasonable
opportunity to the employee by not furnishing the inquiry
report before such decision on the charges was found to
be in violation of principles of natural justice. In the
instant case, the disciplinary authority communicated the
report of the inquiry officer to the Respondent along with
6
the show cause notice. There is no dispute that the
Respondent submitted his reply to the show cause notice
after receiving the report of the inquiry officer. On
considering the explanation submitted by the
Respondent, the disciplinary authority passed an order of
dismissal. Though, it was necessary for the Appellants to
have supplied the report of the inquiry officer before
issuance of the show cause notice proposing penalty, we
find no reason to hold that the Respondent was
prejudiced by supply of the inquiry officer’s report along
with the show cause notice. This is not a case where the
delinquent was handicapped due to the inquiry officer’s
report not being furnished to him at all. In Managing
Director ECIL Hyderabad & Ors. v. B. Karunakar &
Ors. (supra) this Court, while considering the effect on
the order of punishment when the report of the inquiry
officer was not furnished to the employee and the relief
to which the delinquent employee is entitled, held as
under:
[v] ……..When the employee is dismissed or
removed from service and the inquiry is set aside
because the report is not furnished to him, in some
cases the non-furnishing of the report may have
prejudiced him gravely while in other cases it may
7
have made no difference to the ultimate punishment
awarded to him. Hence to direct reinstatement of the
employee with back-wages in all cases is to reduce
the rules of justice to a mechanical ritual. The theory
of reasonable opportunity and the principles of
natural justice have been evolved to uphold the rule
of law and to assist the individual to vindicate his
just rights. They are not incantations to be invoked
nor rites to be performed on all and sundry
occasions. Whether in fact, prejudice has been
caused to the employee or not on account of the
denial to him of the report, has to be considered on
the facts and circumstances of each case. Where,
therefore, even after the furnishing of the report, no
different consequence would have followed, it would
be a perversion of justice to permit the employee to
resume duty and to get all the consequential
benefits. It amounts to rewarding the dishonest and
the guilty and thus to stretching the concept of
justice to illogical and exasperating limits. It amounts
to an “unnatural expansion of natural justice” which
in itself is antithetical to justice.
6. The question of the relief to be granted in cases where
the report of the inquiry officer was not supplied to the
delinquent employee came up for consideration of this
Court in Haryana Financial Corpn. v. Kailash
Chandra Ahuja2
in which it was held as follows:
21. From the ratio laid down in B.
Karunakar [(1993) 4 SCC 727] it is explicitly clear
that the doctrine of natural justice requires supply
of a copy of the inquiry officer's report to the
delinquent if such inquiry officer is other than the
disciplinary authority. It is also clear that
non-supply of report of the inquiry officer is in the
breach of natural justice. But it is equally clear that
failure to supply a report of the inquiry officer to the
delinquent employee would not ipso facto result in
the proceedings being declared null and void and
2 (2008) 9 SCC 31
8
the order of punishment non est and ineffective. It
is for the delinquent employee to plead and prove
that non-supply of such report had caused
prejudice and resulted in miscarriage of justice. If
he is unable to satisfy the court on that point, the
order of punishment cannot automatically be set
aside.
After a detailed examination of the law on the subject,
this Court concluded as follows:
44. From the aforesaid decisions, it is clear that
though supply of report of the inquiry officer is part
and parcel of natural justice and must be furnished
to the delinquent employee, failure to do so would
not automatically result in quashing or setting aside
of the order or the order being declared null and
void. For that, the delinquent employee has to show
“prejudice”. Unless he is able to show that
non-supply of report of the inquiry officer has
resulted in prejudice or miscarriage of justice, an
order of punishment cannot be held to be vitiated.
And whether prejudice had been caused to the
delinquent employee depends upon the facts and
circumstances of each case and no rule of universal
application can be laid down.
7. It is clear from the above that mere non-supply of the
inquiry report does not automatically warrant
re-instatement of the delinquent employee. It is
incumbent upon on the delinquent employee to plead and
prove that he suffered a serious prejudice due to the
non-supply of the inquiry report. We have examined the
writ petition filed by the Respondent and we find no
9
pleading regarding any prejudice caused to the
Respondent by the non-supply of the inquiry report prior
to the issuance of the show cause notice. The
Respondent had ample opportunity to submit his version
after perusing the report of the inquiry officer. The
Respondent utilised the opportunity of placing his
response to the inquiry report before the disciplinary
authority. The High Court committed an error in allowing
the writ petition filed by the Respondent without
examining whether any prejudice was caused to the
delinquent employee by the supply of the inquiry officer’s
report along with the show cause notice. We are satisfied
that there was no prejudice caused to the respondent by
the supply of the report of the inquiry officer along with
the show cause notice. Hence, no useful purpose will be
served by a remand to the court below to examine the
point of prejudice.
8. The Respondent contended that the punishment of
dismissal is disproportionate to the delinquency. It is
submitted that he was working as a driver and the
irregularity in issuance of tickets was committed by the
conductor. We are in agreement with the findings of the
10
inquiry officer which were accepted by the disciplinary
authority and approved by the appellate authority and
the labour court that the Respondent had committed the
misconduct in collusion with the conductor. It is no more
res integra that acts of corruption/misappropriation
cannot be condoned, even in cases where the amount
involved is meagre. (See - U.P.SRTC v. Suresh Chand
Sharma3
).
9. For the aforementioned reasons, we allow the appeal and
set aside the judgment of the High Court. No order as to
costs.
........................................J.
[ARUN MISHRA]
..
……................................J.
[L. NAGESWARA RAO]
New Delhi,
November 10, 2017.
3 (2010) 6 SCC 555 at Para 21-23
