AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Devinder Gupta, C.J.—No doubt normally this Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction will not be sitting as an appellate Court over the findings recorded in domestic enquiry and would be reluctant to even interfere with the conclusions. But when the conclusions arrived at, on the face of the record, are perverse or when the punishment is so disproportionate to the charge levelled in the light of the evidence, Court is not powerless in appropriate cases to interfere. Even availability of alternative remedy of raising the industrial dispute cannot be a bar in entertaining writ petition.
We have gone through the order passed by the learned single Judge. Normally learned single Judge ought not to have exercised discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But we ourselves have gone through the proceedings of the Depot Manager dated November 6, 2002 and the depositions of various witnesses recorded. Considering the conduct of the lady passenger, her background and her version and the version of the conductor, we are of the view that the learned single Judge is perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that it was not a case which would require such an extreme penalty of imposing punishment of dismissal from service. The lady passenger had by her acts and conduct almost hijacked the bus, thereby detaining the bus for more than 15 minutes putting all passengers to inconvenience who with one voice had supported the conductor. Hence we do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge by which order of removal dated June 11, 2002 has been set aside and matter has been remitted to Depot Manager to pass appropriate orders keeping in view the nature of offence and the evidence. Accordingly appeal is dismissed. It is open to the disciplinary authority to pass appropriate orders with respect to imposing punishment other than the punishment which has been set aside.