Judgment
As delivered
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4520 OF 2008(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.5120 of 2007)
North West Karnataka Road TransportCorpn. ...Appellant
Versus
H.H. Pujar ...Respondent
JUDGMENT
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division
Bench of the Karnataka High Court in the writ appeal
no.3830/2005 dismissing appeal against the order of learned
Single Judge in Writ Petition No.17519/2000. The writ appealwas dismissed as not maintainable and, therefore, the
challenge in the present is essential to the order of learned
Single Judge.
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
Respondent-Conductor was commissioning as such in
Bus No. F-16 on 15.9.1993 when the bus was intercepted by
the checking staff. It was found that the respondent had not
issued tickets to 20 out of 136 passengers. Appellant
conducted domestic enquiry which found him guilty.
Consequently, he was dismissed from service vide order dated
3.4.1995. The same was challenged by the respondent before
the Labour Court invoking Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the 'Act'). The Labour Court held
that the domestic inquiry was fair and proper on the basis of
the memorandum filed by the respondent conceding to the
fairness of the domestic inquiry. However, the Labour Court
set aside the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement of
respondent with full back wages, continuity of service and
2other consequential benefits. The basis for this order was non-
checking of cash bag of the respondent and non-examination
of ticketless passengers. The order was challenged before the
High Court. By order dated 21.10.2005, the learned Single
Judge held that the order was correct so far as setting aside
dismissal order is concerned, direction for reinstatement and
continuity of service and consequential benefits. However, the
direction relating to back wages was set aside. The writ
appeal as noted above, was dismissed on the ground that the
same was not maintainable.
4. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that the primary reason indicated by the
Labour Court to hold that the order of dismissal was bad, was
the alleged non-examination of the passengers to whom the
respondent had not issued the tickets. It also did not find any
substance in the stand of the Corporation that earlier also on
12 occasions for similar charges punishments were awarded
but the respondent did not improve his conduct. The High
Court found that the conclusions of the Labour Court were
3correct. It was noted that if more passengers were carried
within the permissible limit, it was fault of the Corporation
who did not took timely reformative and remedial measures.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
view expressed by the High Court is clearly contrary to the law
laid down by this Court. Further, when the respondent himself
conceded to the fairness of the proceedings and the fact that
he had not issued tickets to twenty passengers, their non-
examination is of no consequences.
6. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent in
spite of service of notice.
7. In State of Haryana and Anr. v. Rattan Singh (1977 (2)
SCC 491), it was, inter alia, held as follows:
"4. It is well settled that in a domesticenquiry the strict and sophisticated rules ofevidence under the Indian Evidence Act maynot apply. All materials which are logicallyprobative for a prudent mind are permissible.There is no allergy to hearsay evidence
4provided it has reasonable nexus andcredibility. It is true that departmentalauthorities and Administrative Tribunals mustbe careful in evaluating such material andshould not glibly swallow what is strictlyspeaking not relevant under the IndianEvidence Act. For this proposition it is notnecessary to cite decisions nor text books,although we have been taken through case-law and other authorities by counsel on bothsides. The essence of a judicial approach isobjectivity, exclusion of extraneous materialsor considerations and observance of rules ofnatural justice. Of course, fairplay is the basisand if perversity or arbitrariness, bias orsurrender of independence of judgment vitiatethe conclusions reached, such finding, eventhough of a domestic tribunal, cannot be heldgood. However, the courts below misdirectedthemselves, perhaps, in insisting thatpassengers who had come in and gone outshould be chased and brought before thetribunal before a valid finding could berecorded. The `residuum' rule to which counselfor the respondent referred, based uponcertain passages from AmericanJurisprudence does not go to that extent nordoes the passage from Halsbury insist on suchrigid requirement. The simple point is, wasthere some evidence or was there no evidence
-- not in the sense of the technical rulesgoverning regular court proceedings but in afair commonsense way as men ofunderstanding and worldly wisdom will accept.Viewed in this way, sufficiency of evidence inproof of the finding by a domestic tribunal isbeyond scrutiny. Absence of any evidence insupport of a finding is certainly available forthe court to look into because it amounts to an
5error of law apparent on the record. We find, inthis case, that the evidence of Chamanlal,Inspector of the Flying Squad, is someevidence which has relevance to the chargelevelled against the respondent. Therefore, weare unable to hold that the order is invalid onthat ground.
5. Reliance was placed, as earlier stated, onthe non-compliance with the departmentalinstruction that statements of passengersshould be recorded by inspectors. These areinstructions of prudence, not rules that bindor vitiate in the violation. In this case, theInspector tried to get the statements but thepassengers declined, the psychology of thelatter in such circumstances beingunderstandable, although may not beapproved. We cannot hold that merely becausestatements of passengers were not recordedthe order that followed was invalid. Likewise,the re-evaluation of the evidence on thestrength of co-conductor's testimony is amatter not for the court but for theAdministrative Tribunal. In con- clusion, wedo not think the courts below were right inoverturning the finding of the domestictribunal."
8. The view was reiterated in Divisional Controller KSRTC
(NWKSRTC) v. A.T. Mane (2004 (8) SCALE 308).6
9. As rightly contended by the appellant since fairness of
the proceedings was conceded and the respondent admitted
that he had not issued tickets to 20 passengers, their non-
examination is really of no consequence.
10. In view of what has been stated by this Court in Rattan
Singh's case (supra) and in A.T. Mane's case (supra) award of
the Labour Court and impugned order of the High Court
cannot be maintained and are set aside. The order of
dismissal passed by the Corporation is to operate.
11. The appeal is allowed without any order as to costs.
..........................................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
.........................................J. (P. SATHASIVAM) New Delhi, July 18, 2008
