Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Driver for Collusion in Ticket Irregularities: Uttarakhand Transport Corporation vs. Sukhveer Singh (2017)

Can a disciplinary action be overturned simply because the inquiry report was given with the show cause notice instead of before? The Supreme Court of India recently tackled this question in a case involving a transport corporation driver. The core issue was whether the disciplinary proceedings were flawed due to the timing of the inquiry report’s delivery. The Supreme Court bench comprised Justices Arun Mishra and L. Nageswara Rao, with the judgment authored by Justice L. Nageswara Rao.

Case Background

This case involves Sukhveer Singh, a driver for the Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, formerly known as U.P.S.R.T.C. He was accused of misconduct for not stopping his bus when signaled by an inspection team. The incident occurred on October 27, 1995, on the Karnal-Haridwar route. The inspection team found 61 passengers without tickets after they stopped the bus.

Following the incident, the corporation suspended Singh on October 31, 1995. They initiated disciplinary proceedings with a charge sheet on November 3, 1995. An inquiry was conducted by the Assistant Regional Manager, Haridwar. The inquiry officer concluded that Singh was guilty of misconduct. The disciplinary authority dismissed Singh from service on April 23, 1997, after considering his explanation. The appellate authority dismissed his appeal on July 25, 2000.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the Labour Court ruled in favor of the Respondent on November 15, 2007. However, the High Court overturned this decision and directed the Labour Court to reconsider. After reconsideration, the Labour Court upheld the dismissal on September 12, 2011. The Respondent then challenged this decision in the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital.

The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the dismissal order. The High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Managing Director ECIL Hyderabad & Ors. v. B. Karunakar & Ors. [(1993) 4 SCC 727]. The High Court ordered that the Respondent be reinstated with all benefits. The Uttarakhand Transport Corporation then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core legal issue revolves around the principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings. Specifically, the case examines the requirement to provide the inquiry report to the employee. The Supreme Court in Managing Director ECIL Hyderabad & Ors. v. B. Karunakar & Ors. [(1993) 4 SCC 727] held that a delinquent employee has a right to receive the inquiry report before a decision is made on their guilt. The denial of this report is a violation of natural justice.

The Court also considered the impact of non-compliance with this principle. The Court in Haryana Financial Corpn. v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja [(2008) 9 SCC 318] clarified that not supplying the report doesn’t automatically nullify the proceedings. The employee must prove that the non-supply of the report caused prejudice.

Arguments

The Appellants argued that the High Court’s judgment was incorrect. They stated that the inquiry report was indeed supplied to the Respondent. They further contended that the Respondent did not demonstrate any prejudice due to the report being given with the show cause notice.

The Respondent argued that the disciplinary authority should have provided the inquiry report prior to the show cause notice. They relied on Managing Director ECIL Hyderabad & Ors. v. B. Karunakar & Ors. [(1993) 4 SCC 727]. The Respondent also claimed that some findings in the inquiry report favored him. Finally, he argued that dismissal was too harsh a punishment.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

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

1. Whether the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated because the inquiry report was supplied along with the show cause notice instead of before it.
2. Whether the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the misconduct.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Managing Director ECIL Hyderabad & Ors. v. B. Karunakar & Ors. [(1993) 4 SCC 727]: This case established that a delinquent employee has a right to receive the inquiry report before a decision is made on their guilt. The denial of this report violates natural justice.
• Haryana Financial Corpn. v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja [(2008) 9 SCC 318]: This case clarified that failure to supply the inquiry report does not automatically nullify the proceedings. The employee must prove that they suffered prejudice due to the non-supply.
• U.P. SRTC v. Suresh Chand Sharma [(2010) 6 SCC 555]: This case held that acts of corruption cannot be condoned, even if the amount involved is small.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the High Court was wrong in setting aside the dismissal order. The court emphasized that while it is important to supply the inquiry report to the employee, the timing of the supply is not as crucial as the fact of supply. The court stated that the employee must prove they were prejudiced by the late supply.

The court observed that the Respondent had received the inquiry report with the show cause notice. He had the opportunity to respond to it. The court found no evidence of prejudice. The court also upheld the dismissal, stating that the misconduct was serious.

The Supreme Court stated that,
“Whether in fact, prejudice has been caused to the employee or not on account of the denial to him of the report, has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case.”

The Court further stated that,
“Unless he is able to show that non-supply of report of the inquiry officer has resulted in prejudice or miscarriage of justice, an order of punishment cannot be held to be vitiated.”

The Supreme Court also stated that,
“It is no more res integra that acts of corruption/misappropriation cannot be condoned, even in cases where the amount involved is meagre.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court focused on the lack of demonstrated prejudice to the Respondent due to the timing of the inquiry report. The Court also emphasized the gravity of the misconduct, which involved collusion and corruption. The court did not find any reason to interfere with the order of dismissal.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Providing the inquiry report with the show cause notice does not automatically invalidate disciplinary proceedings.
• ✓ The employee must demonstrate actual prejudice due to the timing of the report’s supply.
• ✓ Acts of corruption, even if involving small amounts, cannot be condoned.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court. No further directions were given.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the non-supply of the inquiry report before the show cause notice does not automatically invalidate the disciplinary proceedings. The employee must prove that they were prejudiced by the timing of the report. This case reinforces the principle established in Haryana Financial Corpn. v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja [(2008) 9 SCC 318], clarifying that the principles of natural justice are not mere formalities but must be applied in a way that ensures justice is served.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s decision. The Court held that providing the inquiry report along with the show cause notice does not automatically invalidate disciplinary proceedings. The employee must prove that they suffered prejudice due to the timing of the report. The Court also upheld the dismissal of the driver, emphasizing that acts of corruption cannot be condoned.