UP State Road Transport Corporation vs. Gajadhar Nath: Supreme Court Upholds Conductor’s Dismissal

The Supreme Court of India recently ruled in Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) vs. Gajadhar Nath, a case concerning the dismissal of a conductor for failing to issue tickets to passengers. The Court upheld the employer’s decision, emphasizing the importance of discipline and accountability in public service roles. The judgment also reinforced the limited role of courts in interfering with disciplinary proceedings.

Background of the Case

The case revolved around Gajadhar Nath, a conductor employed by UPSRTC. He was removed from service on December 14, 2001, after being found guilty of misconduct. The primary charge against him was that during an inspection on November 12, 1998, he failed to issue tickets to 17 passengers despite collecting the fare.

Following his dismissal, the conductor raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal, on May 5, 2008, found that the domestic inquiry conducted by UPSRTC was unfair. Consequently, UPSRTC led fresh evidence before the Tribunal, including the testimony of Assistant Traffic Inspector Sheshmani Mishra, who had conducted the inspection. The Tribunal, however, ruled in favor of the conductor, ordering his reinstatement with 50% back wages. This decision was upheld by the Allahabad High Court on January 20, 2021.

UPSRTC challenged this ruling before the Supreme Court.

Legal Issues Raised

Whether the Industrial Tribunal and High Court erred in setting aside the dismissal order.
Whether the evidence presented by UPSRTC was sufficient to justify the conductor’s termination.
Whether failure to record passenger statements undermined the case against the conductor.
Whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the findings of the lower courts.

Petitioner’s Arguments (UPSRTC)

UPSRTC argued that the conductor had collected fares without issuing tickets, which was a serious misconduct.
Assistant Traffic Inspector Sheshmani Mishra testified that all 17 passengers confirmed they had paid but had not received tickets.
The inspection report was prepared on November 13, 1998, and submitted to the Assistant Regional Manager.
UPSRTC contended that failure to obtain passengers’ signed statements did not invalidate the inquiry, as low-fare passengers often hesitate to provide statements.
They cited State of Haryana vs. Rattan Singh (1977) 2 SCC 491, where the Supreme Court held that domestic inquiries need not follow strict rules of evidence.

Respondent’s Arguments (Gajadhar Nath)

The conductor argued that the evidence against him was insufficient.
The inspector’s report did not bear the signature of the driver or any passengers, raising doubts about its credibility.
If he had misbehaved with the inspector, UPSRTC should have lodged a police complaint.
The Tribunal rightly held that the inquiry was unfair and lacked sufficient evidence.

Supreme Court’s Verdict

The Supreme Court, in a bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, ruled in favor of UPSRTC, restoring the dismissal order. The Court held that the High Court and Tribunal erred in interfering with the employer’s decision.

The Court emphasized:

“The representative of the employer has not been cross-examined on the question that he has not inspected the bus on 12.11.1998. He has deposed that when he tried to record the statements of the passengers, the conductor misbehaved with him and used unruly words.”

Key Observations by the Supreme Court

The Court upheld the principle from State of Haryana vs. Rattan Singh that domestic inquiries do not require strict adherence to the Indian Evidence Act.
Passengers, especially those paying low fares, often hesitate to provide written statements, but that does not invalidate an inquiry.
The Tribunal and High Court wrongly dismissed the inspector’s testimony, which was consistent and credible.
The punishment of dismissal was not disproportionate to the misconduct.

The Supreme Court ruled:

“The orders of the High Court and Tribunal are clearly erroneous and not sustainable in law. The order of punishment dated 14.12.2001 is hereby restored.”

Final Order

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the orders of the Tribunal and High Court.
UPSRTC’s dismissal order against the conductor was reinstated.
No costs were awarded.

Key Takeaways

Employer’s disciplinary decisions deserve deference: Courts should not interfere unless there is clear illegality.
Domestic inquiries do not require strict evidence rules: Testimonies and reports can be relied upon even without signed statements.
Passenger reluctance does not invalidate evidence: The inspector’s report was considered credible despite the absence of passenger signatures.
Misconduct in public service is taken seriously: Collecting fares without issuing tickets is a grave offense warranting strict action.

This judgment reinforces the importance of maintaining integrity in public services and ensures that disciplinary actions taken by employers are not lightly interfered with by courts.

Petitioner Name: Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation.
Respondent Name: Gajadhar Nath.
Judgment By: Justice Hemant Gupta, Justice V. Ramasubramanian.
Place Of Incident: Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 07-12-2021.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: uttar-pradesh-state-vs-gajadhar-nath-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-07-12-2021.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Disciplinary Proceedings
See all petitions in Termination Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by Hemant Gupta
See all petitions in Judgment by V. Ramasubramanian
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments December 2021
See all petitions in 2021 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category