Supreme Court reinstates termination for misconduct, upholding proportionate punishment.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and reinstating the Labour Court's award. The respondent's termination based on misconduct was upheld, emphasizing the seriousness of the established wrongdoing involving manipulating fare records and causing a loss to the Corporation. The Supreme Court found the punishment of termination to be proportionate to the misconduct, disagreeing with the High Court's decision to substitute it with a censure penalty.

---

---

Issues Involved: Appeal against judgment of High Court allowing a writ petition challenging termination of services based on misconduct.

Summary:
1. Issue of Fairness of Domestic Inquiry:
The respondent, a conductor with the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, was removed from service due to misconduct after a domestic inquiry. The Labour Court initially accepted the respondent's plea that the inquiry was not fair, allowing the Corporation to present evidence. After reviewing all evidence, the Labour Court found the charges proved and upheld the termination. The High Court, however, quashed the Labour Court's award, stating the misconduct did not justify termination.

2. Misconduct Allegations:
The charges against the respondent involved manipulating fare records, causing a loss to the Corporation. Evidence presented by the Corporation, including waybills and witness testimony, supported the charges. The Labour Court found the misconduct established, ruling in favor of the Corporation.

3. Proportionality of Punishment:
The High Court substituted the penalty of censure for termination, deeming the termination disproportionate to the misconduct. The Supreme Court disagreed, citing previous cases and stating that the punishment imposed by the Corporation was justified given the seriousness of the established misconduct.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and reinstating the Labour Court's award. The respondent's termination was upheld, emphasizing the seriousness of the established misconduct.

---