Amrik Singh (dead) through L.Rs. vs State of Punjab

Ajay Tewari, J.—This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellant wherein he had prayed for declaration that the order of dismissal dated 9.12.1982 and the order dated 5.10.1983 rejecting his appeal against the order dated 9.12.1982 be set aside.

The appellant was appointed as a Conductor in the year 1976 and in 1982 was charged with two acts of embezzlement, one of having misappropriated Rs. 9.25 by not giving ticket, and the second of having misappropriated Rs. 1.10 by not issuing any ticket. After regular inquiry, charge was proved, show cause notice was issued and on considering the reply, the impugned order of dismissal was passed. Thereafter, as impugned in the suit itself, the appeal was dismissed.

Both the Courts below found that the inquiry was proper and the appellant was given full opportunity. Both the Courts below also found that the impugned order of punishment was well considered and had taken into account all the grounds taken by the appellant. Consequently, as mentioned above, the suit was dismissed.

No question of law was proposed when this appeal was filed. However, subsequently the following law points have been proposed:-

i) Whether the penalty of dismissal awarded to the appellant is disproportionate to the charge proved against the appellant in the facts and circumstances of the present case ?

ii) Whether the charge sheet dated 7.4.1982 can be said to be result of pre-judgment of guilt and whether the same is sustainable in view of the law laid down by Hon''ble Punjab and Haryana Court in 1992 (1) SLR 455 (P&H) ?

iii) Whether the enquiry held against the appellant/plaintiff was in-conformity with the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 and is not vitiated on account of taking into consideration extraneous material for which the appellant/plaintiff was never charge-sheeted ?

It is to be seen that questions No. (ii) and (iii) are pure questions of fact. As regards question No. (i), the Hon''ble Supreme Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Nanhe Lal Kushwaha, has held that Courts may interfere with the quantum of punishment awarded by the employer but, ordinarily, discretion exercised by the employer should not be interfered with. The relevant portion of the judgment in Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation''s case (supra), is quoted as below :-

In Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C., Etawah and Others Vs. Hoti Lal and Another, , this Court opined:

.... It is the responsibility of the bus conductors to collect the correct fare from the passengers and deposit the same with the Corporation. They act in a fiduciary capacity and it would be a case of gross misconduct if knowingly they do not collect any fare or the correct amount of fare.

To the similar effect is the decision of the Supreme Court in Divisional Controller, N.E.K.R.T.C. Vs. H. Amaresh, wherein it was held :

In our view, even short remittance amounts to misconduct and, therefore, applying the rulings of this Court, the impugned order ought not to have been passed by the Division Bench ordering reinstatement. We, therefore, have no hesitation to set aside the order passed by the learned Judges of the Division Bench and restore the order of dismissal of the respondent from service....

Consequently, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.