LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a disciplinary authority can rely on the statement of an inspector to prove misconduct of a bus conductor even without examining passengers who were allegedly traveling without tickets.

CASE TYPE: Labour Law/ Industrial Dispute

Case Name: Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vs. Gajadhar Nath

Judgment Date: 8 December 2021

Date of the Judgment: 8 December 2021

Citation: [Not Available in Source]

Judges: Hemant Gupta, J. and V. Ramasubramanian, J.

Can a disciplinary authority dismiss an employee based on the report of an inspector, even if the passengers who were allegedly traveling without tickets are not examined? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a bus conductor dismissed for misconduct. The core issue was whether the evidence presented by the employer was sufficient to justify the dismissal. The two-judge bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) employed Gajadhar Nath as a bus conductor. On 14 December 2001, the UPSRTC removed the conductor from service due to alleged misconduct. The misconduct stemmed from an incident on 12 November 1998, where an Assistant Traffic Inspector, Sheshmani Mishra, reported that 17 passengers were traveling without tickets on a bus driven by the conductor. The inspector stated that the passengers admitted to paying for tickets, but the conductor did not issue any. The inspector also alleged that the conductor misbehaved when questioned. The conductor raised an industrial dispute against his removal, which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal.

Timeline

Date Event
12 November 1998 Assistant Traffic Inspector, Sheshmani Mishra, inspects bus and reports 17 passengers traveling without tickets.
13 November 1998 The Inspector submits the report to the Assistant Regional Manager
14 December 2001 Gajadhar Nath, the conductor, is removed from service.
5 May 2008 The Industrial Tribunal finds the domestic inquiry against the conductor unfair.
22 October 2008 The Industrial Tribunal orders reinstatement of the conductor with 50% back wages.
20 January 2021 The High Court of Allahabad upholds the Industrial Tribunal’s order.
8 December 2021 The Supreme Court of India allows the appeal of the employer and restores the order of dismissal of the conductor.

Course of Proceedings

The Industrial Tribunal initially found the domestic inquiry against the conductor to be unfair. Consequently, the employer, UPSRTC, presented evidence before the Tribunal. The employer examined the Assistant Traffic Inspector, Sheshmani Mishra, who reiterated his report about the incident. The Tribunal, however, set aside the removal order, stating that the Inspector should have recorded statements from the passengers or at least their names and addresses. The Tribunal also questioned why an FIR was not filed if the conductor had misbehaved. The High Court of Allahabad upheld the Tribunal’s decision. The UPSRTC then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referred to Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which allows the Tribunal to review the evidence in a disciplinary case. The Court also considered the principles laid down in Workmen of M/s Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (P.) Ltd. v. Management & Ors. (1973) 1 SCC 813, which states that if a domestic inquiry is found to be defective, the employer can lead evidence before the Tribunal to prove the misconduct. The court also referred to the judgment in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Smt. Lakshmidevamma & Anr. AIR 2001 SC 2090, which clarified the procedure for leading evidence before the Tribunal.

The Court also referred to State of Haryana & Anr. v. Rattan Singh (1977) 2 SCC 491, which held that strict rules of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, do not apply to domestic inquiries. The Court stated that materials that are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible, including hearsay evidence with reasonable nexus and credibility. The Court also cited U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Suresh Chand Sharma (2010) 6 SCC 555, which held that the non-examination of passengers does not invalidate the findings of misconduct.

See also  Supreme Court Addresses Tribunal Independence and Member Appointments: Madras Bar Association vs. Union of India (27 November 2020)

Arguments

Arguments of the Appellant (UPSRTC):

  • The employer argued that the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 does not strictly apply to domestic inquiries. Therefore, the report of the Inspector should be considered valid evidence even if the passengers were not examined.
  • The employer relied on the judgment in State of Haryana & Anr. v. Rattan Singh (1977) 2 SCC 491, which stated that strict rules of evidence do not apply to domestic inquiries.
  • The employer also cited U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Suresh Chand Sharma (2010) 6 SCC 555, arguing that the non-examination of passengers does not invalidate the findings of misconduct.
  • The employer contended that the Inspector’s statement that the conductor misbehaved when the Inspector tried to record the statements of the passengers was not disputed in the cross-examination.

Arguments of the Respondent (Gajadhar Nath):

  • The respondent argued that the Inspector’s statement was not reliable because he did not record the names and addresses of the passengers.
  • The respondent contended that there was no basic evidence to prove that the passengers were traveling without tickets and hence the finding of the Tribunal was correct.
  • The respondent did not argue that the passengers were required to be examined but he argued that there should have been some evidence that there were passengers who were found travelling without any ticket.
Main Submission Sub-Submissions of Appellant (UPSRTC) Sub-Submissions of Respondent (Gajadhar Nath)
Validity of Inspector’s Report ✓ Indian Evidence Act, 1872 does not strictly apply to domestic inquiries.
✓ Reliance on State of Haryana & Anr. v. Rattan Singh (1977) 2 SCC 491 for permissibility of logically probative materials.
✓ Reliance on U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Suresh Chand Sharma (2010) 6 SCC 555 for non-necessity of examining passengers.		 ✓ Inspector’s statement is unreliable due to lack of passenger details.
✓ Absence of basic evidence that passengers were traveling without tickets.
Misconduct of the Conductor ✓ The Inspector’s statement that the conductor misbehaved was not disputed in cross-examination. ✓ No specific sub-submissions on this point.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue that the Court addressed was:

  1. Whether the evidence presented by the employer was sufficient to justify the dismissal of the conductor, particularly when the passengers allegedly traveling without tickets were not examined.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Issue Court’s Decision Brief Reasons
Whether the evidence presented by the employer was sufficient to justify the dismissal of the conductor, particularly when the passengers allegedly traveling without tickets were not examined. Yes, the evidence was sufficient. The Court held that strict rules of evidence do not apply to domestic inquiries, and the Inspector’s report was sufficient evidence of misconduct. The court also noted that the statement of the inspector that the conductor misbehaved with him was not disputed in cross-examination.

Authorities

Authority Court How it was used Legal Point
Workmen of M/s Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (P.) Ltd. v. Management & Ors. (1973) 1 SCC 813 Supreme Court of India Referred to establish that if a domestic inquiry is defective, the employer can lead evidence before the Tribunal. Power of the Tribunal to reappraise evidence in case of defective domestic inquiry.
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Smt. Lakshmidevamma & Anr. AIR 2001 SC 2090 Supreme Court of India Referred to clarify the procedure for leading evidence before the Tribunal. Procedure for leading evidence before the Tribunal.
State of Haryana & Anr. v. Rattan Singh (1977) 2 SCC 491 Supreme Court of India Referred to support the argument that strict rules of evidence do not apply to domestic inquiries. Applicability of Evidence Act to domestic inquiries.
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Suresh Chand Sharma (2010) 6 SCC 555 Supreme Court of India Referred to support that non-examination of passengers does not invalidate the findings of misconduct. Non-examination of passengers not fatal to misconduct finding.
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation through M.D. & Ors. v. Rajendra Prasad 2019 SCC OnLine All 5152 High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Referred to show a similar case where the High Court held that examination of passengers was not required. Non-examination of passengers not fatal to misconduct finding.
See also  Supreme Court Clarifies Ineligibility under Section 29A(h) of IBC for Guarantors: Bank of Baroda vs. MBL Infrastructures Ltd. (2022)

Judgment

Submission of Parties Court’s Treatment
The employer argued that the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 does not strictly apply to domestic inquiries. Therefore, the report of the Inspector should be considered valid evidence even if the passengers were not examined. The Court agreed, stating that strict rules of evidence do not apply to domestic inquiries, and the Inspector’s report was sufficient evidence.
The employer relied on the judgment in State of Haryana & Anr. v. Rattan Singh (1977) 2 SCC 491, which stated that strict rules of evidence do not apply to domestic inquiries. The Court accepted this argument and applied the principle to the present case.
The employer also cited U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Suresh Chand Sharma (2010) 6 SCC 555, arguing that the non-examination of passengers does not invalidate the findings of misconduct. The Court agreed with this argument and held that the non-examination of passengers was not fatal to the finding of misconduct.
The respondent argued that the Inspector’s statement was not reliable because he did not record the names and addresses of the passengers. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the Inspector’s inability to record passenger details was not unjustified, given the circumstances.
The respondent contended that there was no basic evidence to prove that the passengers were traveling without tickets and hence the finding of the Tribunal was correct. The Court rejected this argument stating that the statement of the Inspector was sufficient to prove that the passengers were travelling without tickets.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

  • The Court relied on Workmen of M/s Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (P.) Ltd. v. Management & Ors. (1973) 1 SCC 813 to reiterate that the Tribunal has the power to review evidence in a case of defective domestic inquiry.
  • The Court followed Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Smt. Lakshmidevamma & Anr. AIR 2001 SC 2090 to affirm the procedure for leading evidence before the Tribunal.
  • The Court applied the principles laid down in State of Haryana & Anr. v. Rattan Singh (1977) 2 SCC 491, stating that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to domestic inquiries.
  • The Court followed U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Suresh Chand Sharma (2010) 6 SCC 555, stating that the non-examination of passengers does not invalidate the finding of misconduct.
  • The Court followed U.P. State Road Transport Corporation through M.D. & Ors. v. Rajendra Prasad 2019 SCC OnLine All 5152, which was a similar case decided by the Allahabad High Court.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by several factors. The Court emphasized that domestic inquiries are not bound by the strict rules of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Court also noted that the Inspector’s statement was not disputed in cross-examination and that the Tribunal and High Court had erred in rejecting the evidence led by the employer. The Court also took into account that the passengers were low-fare paying passengers and might have been hesitant to get involved in the issues of any action against the conductor. The Court also noted that the initiation of criminal proceedings against an employee or not initiating the proceedings has no bearing to prove misconduct in departmental proceedings.

Sentiment Percentage
Relaxed application of Evidence Act in domestic inquiries 30%
Undisputed statement of the Inspector 30%
Erroneous rejection of evidence by Tribunal and High Court 20%
Hesitancy of low-fare passengers to get involved 10%
Non-initiation of criminal proceedings has no bearing on departmental proceedings 10%

Fact:Law Ratio

Category Percentage
Fact 40%
Law 60%

The Court’s decision was influenced more by legal principles than the factual aspects of the case.

Logical Reasoning:

Issue: Was the evidence sufficient to justify the dismissal?
↓
Domestic inquiry rules: Not bound by strict Evidence Act
↓
Inspector’s statement: Sufficient evidence of misconduct
↓
Cross-examination: Inspector’s statement not challenged
↓
Tribunal and High Court: Erred in rejecting employer’s evidence
↓
Conclusion: Dismissal justified

The court reasoned that since the domestic inquiry is not bound by the strict rules of evidence, the statement of the Inspector was sufficient to prove the misconduct. The court also noted that the statement of the Inspector was not challenged in the cross-examination. The court further held that the Tribunal and High Court had erred in rejecting the evidence led by the employer.

See also  Supreme Court Transfers Matrimonial Case: Priyanka Arya vs. Ashutosh Arya (2021)

The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them. The Court rejected the argument that the Inspector’s statement was unreliable because he did not record the names and addresses of the passengers. The Court also rejected the argument that there was no basic evidence to prove that the passengers were traveling without tickets.

The Court concluded that the order of removal from service was fair and just. “Therefore, we find that the order of removal from service cannot be said to be unfair and unjust in any manner which would warrant an interference at the hands of the Tribunal and the High Court.” The Court also stated, “The three reasons recorded by the Tribunal are absolutely perverse and not supported by any evidence.” The Court further stated, “The Tribunal had misapplied the basic principles of law and the High Court has thereafter wrongly confirmed the order.”

Key Takeaways

  • Strict rules of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 do not apply to domestic inquiries.
  • The statement of an inspector can be considered sufficient evidence of misconduct in a domestic inquiry, even if passengers are not examined.
  • The non-examination of passengers does not invalidate the findings of misconduct in such cases.
  • The Tribunal and High Court cannot reject the evidence led by the employer without proper justification.
  • The initiation of criminal proceedings against an employee or not initiating the proceedings has no bearing to prove misconduct in departmental proceedings.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the High Court and the Industrial Tribunal and restored the order of punishment dated 14.12.2001, dismissing the conductor.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that strict rules of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 do not apply to domestic inquiries, and the statement of an inspector can be considered sufficient evidence of misconduct, even if passengers are not examined. This case reaffirms the principles laid down in previous judgments and provides clarity on the evidentiary standards in domestic inquiries.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, setting aside the orders of the High Court and the Industrial Tribunal. The Court held that the dismissal of the conductor was justified based on the evidence presented by the employer. The Court reiterated that domestic inquiries are not bound by the strict rules of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and that the statement of an inspector can be sufficient evidence of misconduct.

Source: UP Road Transport Corp vs. Gajadhar Nath