vil Appeal No 3 169 of 1981
From the Judgment and Order dated 751981 of the Alla habad High Court in Second Appeal No 1018 of 1974
Jagan Mohan Rao and R Ramachandran NP for the Appellant
Subodh Markandeya Mrs Chitra Markandeya WA Nomani and GS Giri for the Respondent
779 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K JAYACHANDRA REDDY J
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 re spondent was a bus conductor in UP 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 23rd March 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 al lowed
Aggrieved by the said judgment the Corporation has approached this Court
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
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 investigat ing officer and if so what would be its effect The charge against the respondent was that he erased the waybills 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 7th 8th and 10th January 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 preju dice
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 origi nals and also on the ground that he did not later insisted on those carbon copies being shown to him
The High Court however in an elaborate judgment referred to the various documents 780 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 judg ments 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 con sidered 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 interfer ence under Article 136 of the Constitution
The High Court decreed the suit for pendente lite and future pay and allowances and this was passed on 7th May 1981
It can therefore be seen that for the last 25 years this litigation went on ie from the date of dismissal till today
Admittedly the respondent has already reached the age of superannuation some years ago
During these years the respondent must have sought some employment or the other and the learned counsel also could not seriously dispute the same
Under these circumstances the question is whether again the parties should be driven to go through the indefi nite execution proceedings
On the question of granting lump sum amount towards the backwages and allowances till the date of his retirement we have also heard both sides
Under somewhat similar circumstances this Court in Sohan Singh vs Union of India and Another granted lump 781 sum amount instead of driving the parties to go to the executing court for further relief
That was a case where the service of an airman in the Air Force was not extended for a period of six years as per the regulation and the matter ultimately came up before this Court
Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances this Court held that the employee should be compensated by payment of a lump sum amount in lieu of the benefits to which he would have been otherwise entitled if he had continued in service for the extended period of six years
Without going into the merits of the actual claim this Court awarded a sum of Rs35000 by way of compensation
In the instant case also we are of the view that ends of justice require that such a relief should be granted
Taking into consideration all these aspects including that the respondent would have been entitled for some retirement benefit we award Rs35000 and direct the UP State Road Transport Corporation the appellant herein to pay this amount to the respondent within two months from today
Since the amount would be received in lump sum by the respondent it may attract the levy of income tax
But since the amount represents the salary and allowances over the last so many years the respondent may make an application under Section 89 of the Income Tax Act for spreading over this lump sum amount
We may also point out that in similar circumstances this Court in Sundaram Motors Pvt Ltd vs Ameerjan and Another where the compensation by way of lump sum amount was awarded observed that the same should be spread over and gave a direction to the concerned Income Tax Officer to give immediate relief under Section 89 with out further enquiry
Accordingly We direct the Corporation to pay the lump sum amount of Rs35000 without deducting income tax
Since the respondent is entitled for relief under Section 89 of the Income Tax Act he shall make an application to the concerned Income Tax Officer who shall give the necessary relief without any further enquiry
The appeal is disposed of accordingly
In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs
NPV Appeal disposed of


Summary:
A Selection Committee consisting of five Members was constituted to recommend names for appointment to the post of Reader in Linguistics  in the Department of Hindi of the University of Lucknow
The Selection Committee after inter viewing the candidates recommended the name of the appellant while respondent No 1 was placed in the second position
Respondent No 1 filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the recommendations of the Selection Committee on the ground that the Selection Committee was not legally constituted because three experts on the Committee were experts in Hindi Literature and not Linguistic experts
The High Court allowed the petition and inter alia held that under Statute 171 of the University the Chancellor was required to nominate experts out of the panel of experts in the subject of Linguistics  which was a separate subject of study in the University that the nomination of experts out of the panel drawn from the subject of Hindi suffered from a serious legal infirmity and that Explanation II to sub section 5 of Section 31 of the UP State Universities Act 1973 was wholly inapplicable to the instant case
Before this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant that in view of the fact that a Reader in Lin guistics  was to be appointed in the Department of Hindi as such experts in Hindi Language and Literature were also qualified to act as experts for the selection of Reader in Linguistics 
Respondent No 1 while supporting the judgment Of the High Court submitted that Linguistics was a separate sub ject of study for MA Part I and Part II and merely because the post of Reader in Linguistics was in the Department of Hindi it would not make any difference and the experts of Hindi Language and Literature could not be 728 appointed as experts in the Selection Committee for the selection of Reader in Linguistics
Dismissing the appeal this Court HELD 1 The prospectus of the University makes it abundantly clear that separate courses of study are pre scribed for MA Part I or Part II in respect of Hindi on the one hand and Linguistics on the other
734B 2 The subject of Hindi Language and Literature and the subject of Linguistics are entirely separate subjects of study
This is clearly borne out from Explanation I to sub section 5a of section 31 of the Universities Act
733H 734A 3 Explanation I lays down in a clear manner that for the purpose of this sub section a branch of subject in which a separate course of study is prescribed for a post graduate degree or for Part I or Part II thereof shall be deemed to be a separate subject of study
734A 4 It is an admitted position that separate Panels of Experts were drawn for the subjects of Hindi and Linguis tics
732E 5 In the instant case the advertisement no where provided that one Reader in Linguistics in the Department of Hindi was to be selected as common to more than one subject of study
Merely because the post of Reader in Linguistics was required in the Department it cannot be held that such Reader in Linguistics was to teach the subject of Linguis tics as well as the subject of Hindi Language and Litera ture
734G H 6 Explanation II to sub section 5 of section 31 of the Universities Act can only apply in a case where one common teacher is to be selected for more than one subject of study and in that contingency it provides that the expert may belong to either of such subjects of study
735A B