Supreme Court Reverses Dismissal, Emphasizes Misconduct

Divisional Controller, N.E.K.R.T.C. Versus H. Amaresh

Divisional Controller, N.E.K.R.T.C. Versus H. Amaresh - 2006 AIR 2730, 2006 (3) Suppl. SCR 585, 2006 (6) SCC 187, 2006 (6) JT 428, 2006 (7) SCALE 163 Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the inquiry proceedings conducted by the appellant-Corporation.
2. Findings of the Labour Court regarding the charges against the respondent.
3. Appropriateness of the punishment of dismissal from service.
4. Legality of the reinstatement and back wages awarded by the Labour Court and affirmed by the High Court.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Inquiry Proceedings:
The Labour Court declared the inquiry proceedings illegal and invalid due to the denial of a reasonable opportunity to the respondent. This preliminary issue was decided against the appellant-Corporation, which led to the Labour Court independently examining the charges against the respondent.

2. Findings of the Labour Court:
The Labour Court held that out of the four charges, only the fourth charge regarding pilferage was proved. The Inquiry Officer's report detailed the respondent's misconduct, including misappropriation of funds and being in a drunken state while on duty. The Labour Court found discrepancies in its findings, noting that while the respondent was negligent in remitting the amount, there was no conclusive evidence of intoxication. However, it ultimately held that the charge of pilferage was grave and warranted some punishment.

3. Appropriateness of the Punishment of Dismissal from Service:
The Supreme Court emphasized that any dereliction of duty, especially involving financial misappropriation, is detrimental to the appellant-Corporation's financial well-being and against public interest. The Court cited previous judgments, such as Regional Manager, RSRTC vs. Ghanshyam Sharma and Karnataka SRTC vs. B.S. Hullikatti, which held that bus conductors causing financial loss to the Corporation through dishonesty or gross negligence should not be retained in service. The Court reiterated that the loss of confidence in the employee is the primary factor, not the amount misappropriated.

4. Legality of the Reinstatement and Back Wages Awarded:
The Labour Court initially ordered reinstatement with 75% back wages, which was modified by the Single Judge to 25% back wages and affirmed by the Division Bench. The Supreme Court found this to be contrary to the law, as established in previous judgments. The Court held that the Labour Court and the High Court failed to consider the cogent evidence and documents produced by the Corporation. The Supreme Court concluded that the respondent's misconduct was grave and warranted dismissal, not reinstatement. The Court set aside the orders of the Labour Court and the High Court, restoring the respondent's dismissal from service.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the appellant-Corporation, set aside the orders of the Labour Court, the Single Judge, and the Division Bench, and restored the respondent's dismissal from service. The Court directed the appellant-Corporation to discharge the respondent from service immediately, clarifying that the salary and emoluments paid during the interim period would not be recovered, but no further emoluments would be due. The Court appreciated the assistance rendered by Ms. Anitha Shenoy, learned counsel for the appellant.