IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1879 OF 2001 (M/S) (OLD NO. 39148 OF 1999) U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Region Dehradun. ………..Petitioner. Versus State of U.P. and others. ……………...Respondents. Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Gopal Narain, Brief Holder for the respondents no. 1 and 2. 29 th July, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the award / order dated 22.4.1999 published on 17.5.1999 in Adjudication Case No. 88 of 1998 Shiv Prasad Tiwari Vs. Regional Manager U.P.S.R.T.C. Dehradun. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no. 3 was working as a Conductor with the petitioner Corporation since 1960. On 24.1.1993, when the respondent no. 3 was on duty in the Corporation Bus No. UNS – 8810, the Checking Inspector made signal for stoppage of the Bus at Dehradun-Badriyaghat Route and on checking, the Checking Inspector along with Checking Staff, ten passengers were found without having tickets. On inquiry from the passengers, they reported to the Checking Inspector that the respondent no. 3 did not issue ticket to them though had collected money from them. When the Checking Inspector demanded the Blank Ticket Book and Way Bill from the respondent no. 3., he refused to give the same and according to the petitioner, he misbehaved with him and tried to create interruption in the inspection of the aforesaid Bus. Thereafter, being compelled, the Checking Inspector issued the tickets form the Penalty Book to the passengers and made an inspection entry on duty slip of the driver of the Bus because the respondent no. 3 refused to provide the Way- bill and Blank Ticket Book to the Checking Inspector. 3. The passengers traveling in the said bus gave their written statements stating therein that the valid tickets had not been issued to them by the respondent no. 3 in- spite of collecting money from them. When the Checking Inspector was taking the statements of the passengers, the respondent no. 3 created disturbance and tried to restrain him from recording the statements of the passengers. 4. Thereafter, the Checking Inspector reported the matter and sent his report to the Regional Manager, Dehradun on the very same day. On the said report, the Corporation / petitioner suspended the respondent no.3 on 2.2.1993 and sent the charge sheet to the respondent no. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner / Corporation initiated a departmental enquiry against the respondent no. 3 which was conducted by one Sri H.S. Sexena, a retired I.F.S., the Enquiry Officer sent a letter to the respondent no. 3 on 22.7.1993 and intimated him to appear before him for hearing and to produce evidence in his favour, if any. The respondent no. 3 appeared before the Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry Officer provided him opportunity of hearing and cross-examination with the witnesses, who appeared on behalf of the petitioner. 5. After completion of the inquiry, the petitioner / Corporation sent a show cause notice along with the enquiry report being submitted by Enquiry Officer against the respondent no. 3. Thereafter, respondent no. 3 gave reply to the show cause notice, but the reply being unsatisfactory, the department terminated the respondent no. 3 from service on 4.5.1995. 6. Thereafter, the respondent no. 3 raised an industrial dispute and the matter was referred to the Labour Court by the State Government under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. This industrial dispute was numbered as Adjudication Case No. 88 of 1998. The respondent no. 3 filed his claim before the labour Court and a reply to that was filed by the petitioner / Corporation. 7. On the pleadings of the parties, the Labour Court framed the following preliminary issues: “i) Whether departmental enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice ? ii) whether the conclusion of the enquiry officer is perverse? iii) Whether punishment given to respondent-3 is very harsh? 8. While deciding the first preliminary issue, the Labour Court relied upon the charge sheet dated 2.2.1993 given to the respondent no. 3 and recorded a finding that the charge sheet dated 2.2.1993 is clear and complete and the Enquiry Officer provided ample opportunity of hearing to the respondent no. 3. While deciding the second preliminary issue, the Labour Court recorded a finding that the departmental inquiry was conducted according to the principles of natural justice. While deciding the preliminary issue no. 3, the Labour Court has recorded a finding that the conclusion of the Enquiry Officer was not perverse. 9. Further, the labour court by award dated 22.4.1999 came to a conclusion that the punishment given to the respondent no. 3 by the Corporation is very harsh, a finding was also recorded that creating interruption during inspection of the Bus and refusing to hand over the Blank Ticket Books and Way Bill to the Checking Inspector are not of a serious nature for such a punishment and the labour Court set aside the order of termination dated 4.5.1995 by its order / award dated 22.4.1999 published on 17.5.1999 along with all arrears. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred the order dated 30.4.1997 passed by the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 763 of 1987 Udai Bhan Singh Vs. The Regional Manager, U.P. Road Transport Corporation, where the High Court of Allahabad has observed that “even if the amount of embezzlement is nominal, the minimum punishment under the disciplinary proceedings is dismissal. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred the decision dated 4th September, 1996 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (C) No. 16793 of 1996 Shyam Bahadur Tripathi Vs. State Public Service Tribunal and others, where the Apex Court has observed that “when the department passed a termination order after considering the report of the Enquiry Officer and reply to the show – cause notice given by the petitioner, the order of dismissal cannot be said illegal.” 12. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further referred U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Ram Kishan Arora (2007) 4 SCC 627, where the Hon’ble Apex Court relying upon the judgment of Amrit Vanaspati Co. Ltd. Vs. Khem Chand and Another [(2006) 6 SCC 325] has held as under: “10. In Amrit Vanaspati Co. Ltd. v. Khem Chand and Another [(2006) 6 SCC 325], this Court held: “In our opinion, the High Court while exercising powers under writ jurisdiction cannot deal with aspects like whether the quantum of punishment meted out by the management to a workman for a particular misconduct is sufficient or not. This part, the High Court while exercising powers under the writ jurisdiction cannot interfere with the factual findings of the Labour Court which are based on appreciation of facts adduced before it by leading evidence. In our opinion, the High Court has gravely erred in holding that the evidence of Respondent 1 was not considered by the Labour Court and had returned the finding that the evidence or Respondent 1 did not inspire any confidence. We are of the opinion that the High Court is not right in interfering with the well-considered order passed by the Labour Court confirming the order of dismissal.” 11. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly. The award of the Labour Court is also set aside and the punishment of removal imposed by the disciplinary authority is upheld. The appeal is allowed. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs.” 13. I have gone through the award passed by the Labour Court, the labour Court has taken each and every documents available on record, thereafter, has stopped only one annual increment with future effect and since the workman has already retired during the pendency of the case, he was not ordered for reinstatement. In view of the aforesaid case laws, evidence available on record as well as arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent no. 3 was guilty of commission of a serious misconduct. Therefore, the award passed by the labour Court is modified to this extent that the respondent no. 3 shall not be entitled to get any pending benefit. 14. Writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 29.7.2008 Rathour