UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus GAJADHAR NATH

UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus GAJADHAR NATH

The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal and High Court were in error to reject the employer's evidence (the Inspector's testimony and report). Non-recording of passengers' names/addresses and non-lodging of an FIR did not automatically render the Inspector's evidence unreliable, and initiation or non-initiation of criminal proceedings has no bearing on proof of misconduct in departmental proceedings. The findings of the Tribunal were perverse and unsupported by evidence; the order of removal dated 14.12.2001 was therefore restored.

Parties
Appellant / Employer: Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation; Respondent / Workman: Gajadhar Nath
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
08 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal No.7536 of 2021 / Appeal From the Judgment and Order Dated 20.01.2021 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ C No.51777 of 2009
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Domestic Inquiry, Misconduct, Reinstatement, Punishment, Tribunal Review, Natural Justice, Evidence Admissibility
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Labour/employment Law Administrative Law Domestic Inquiry Misconduct Reinstatement Punishment +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Appellant / Employer

Gajadhar Nath

Respondent / Workman

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal No.7536 of 2021 / Appeal From the Judgment and Order Dated 20.01.2021 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ C No.51777 of 2009

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal and High Court could reject the employer's evidence led to prove misconduct after the domestic inquiry was held defective
  2. 2 Whether non-recording of passengers' names/addresses and non-lodging of an FIR vitiate the Inspector's testimony
  3. 3 Whether initiation or non-initiation of criminal proceedings affects proof of misconduct in departmental/disciplinary proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal and High Court were in error to reject the employer's evidence (the Inspector's testimony and report). Non-recording of passengers' names/addresses and non-lodging of an FIR did not automatically render the Inspector's evidence unreliable, and initiation or non-initiation of criminal proceedings has no bearing on proof of misconduct in departmental proceedings. The findings of the Tribunal were perverse and unsupported by evidence; the order of removal dated 14.12.2001 was therefore restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Orders of the High Court dated 20.01.2021 and of the Industrial Tribunal dated 22.10.2008 are set aside
  • Order of punishment of removal dated 14.12.2001 is restored