Uttarakhand Transport Corporation vs Prescribed Authority and Others

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J—The petitioner before this Court is Uttarakhand Transport Corporation (from hereinafter referred to as "Corporation"). The private respondent No. 2-Ramesh Chandra Pandey was a driver in the said Corporation. At the relevant time the Corporation was known as U.P. Roadways Transport Corporation, as it was then in the State of Uttar Pradesh. In the normal course, all the employees of Kumaon Region, after creation of Uttarakhand, have been absorbed in Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, which was created subsequent to the formation of the new State of Uttarakhand. In any case, the petitioner was a party before the Labour Court, whose order has been challenged by the petitioner/Corporation before this Court.

Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 2, being the driver in the said Corporation was driving the bus from "Bharadi" (at the relevant time it was a part of District Almora) to Delhi. Admittedly in the said route drivers are changed midway at a place called "Bhowali", and the new driver takes the bus to its destination. From Bhowali the petitioner took charge of the bus and proceeded towards Delhi but due to some technical problem the bus did not move further than 7 kilometres from the Bhowali Depot. The driver/respondent" No. 2 stopped the bus on the road side and all the passengers were boarded in another bus, as it has come in the arguments, today. The petitioner returned to Bhowali depot in the night at about 8:30 but since there was no one at the depot he returned to his bus and spent the night in the bus itself. The next day at 7:30 a.m. again he went to Bhowali Depot to report about the mishap and thereafter an inspection team was sent to the spot. It was detected that the flexible pipe of the diesel tank, (which connects the diesel tank of the bus to the engine) was leaking. The inspection report says that it was deliberately cut by a sharp edged instrument and it caused a loss of 86.48 litres of diesel. Apart from this a spare tyre, which was in the bus, was also missing. Consequently, a Departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. He was immediately put under suspension and on enquiry the charge of causing loss to the Corporation were proved against the petitioner and he was removed from service vide order dated 30.7.1991. The petitioner preferred a Departmental appeal against the said order before the Deputy General Manager, Bareilly. From the record it appears that no decision was taken by the appellate authority. All the same, the petitioner has then shown extreme negligence in this matter by keeping quiet in the matter, as he approached the Labour Court on 26.9.2000. It was therefore a highly belated application filed by the petitioner after a delay of nine years. Nevertheless, this delay was ultimately condoned by the Labour Court on 19.2.2001, and finally decided the matter vide its award dated 24.11.2011 by which the workman has been reinstated in service with 30% of the back wages. This award is now under challenge by the Corporation before this Court.

The charge against the petitioner was that he had caused financial loss to the Corporation to the tune of Rs. 5,354/-. The finding of the Enquiry Officer, who had appreciated the statements of the witnesses, some of them who have categorically said that the flexible pipe was cut by a sharp edged instrument and that can only be done by the petitioner and ultimately given a finding that the responsibility for causing the financial loss to the Corporation is solely on the petitioner, irrespective of whether he did it himself or the loss was caused due to his negligence. Thereafter, the appointing authority on the basis of the above finding terminated the petitioner.

The Labour Court in its finding has held that the act on the part of the petitioner can be of negligence and even if he has caused financial loss to the Corporation, the penalty of dismissal is extremely severe.

The records also show that there was no deliberate act on the part of the petitioner, or that it can be said that he stole the spare tyre or the diesel from the bus. The facts also were that on this fateful day he immediately reported the matter to the Bhowali Depot and later spent the night in bus itself. On the very next morning, promptly informed the department about the technical snag in the bus. All this shows that the conduct of the petitioner is not such that where a deliberate act on his part can be assigned. Definitely there may be a case of negligence on the part of the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer itself has categorically said that loss could also be due to negligence on part of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, the penalty of removal was extremely harsh not justified at all.

In view thereof, the reinstatement of petitioner with 30% of back wages seems to be justified except one caveat, which is that since there has been a delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching the Labour Court, the 30% back wages will not be calculated from the date of his removal but from the date he approached the Labour Court, since the delay was on his part to approach the Labour Court.

With the above modification in the impugned award dated 24.11.2011, where the back wages 30% shall now be calculated from the date of the application before the Labour Court i.e. from 26.9.2000, no other interference is being made. With the above modification, the writ petition stands disposed.