9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (11) TMI 302X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of removal. In such cases, there is no place of generosity or place of sympathy on the part of the judicial forums and interfering with the quantum of the punishment. - Appeal (civil) 4698 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 7-11-2006 - Dr. AR. Lakshmanan Tarun Chatterjee JJ. JUDGMENT: Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J. Leave granted. The Department Manager A.P.S.R.T.C. is the appellant in this appeal. The respondent joined as cleaner in the APSRTC (in short 'the Corporation') on 02.10.1976. While working as mechanic, he was involved in a serious case of theft. On 23/24.08.1986, while working in the night shift, he committed a theft of Fuel Injection Pump. This apart, he was also involved in stealing an alternator bearing while working in the ni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nquiry Officer, on completion of the domestic enquiry, had submitted a report holding the respondent guilty of all the charges that were levelled against him. A criminal case was also initiated against the respondent in C.C. No. 751/1987. The Criminal Court by its judgment and order dated 16.05.1987 acquitted the respondent of the charges that were levelled against him. Basing on the Enquiry Officer's report, the Depot Manager, on independently examining the matter, came to a conclusion that orders of removal would be an appropriate punishment for the proved charges of theft. Accordingly, the Depot Manager issued proceedings for removing the respondent from the services of the Corporation. Aggrieved by the order of his removal, the resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal filed by the appellant herein. Aggrieved against the order passed by the Division Bench, the above Civil Appeal has been filed in this Court. We heard Mr. Mahesh Babu, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Vijaya Bhaskar, learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court has failed to appreciate that the misconduct of theft involved in by the respondent was a serious misconduct warranting no less a punishment than removal from services of the Corporation and that the High Court has also failed to appreciate that the delinquent employee gave a statement in which he admitted that he had stolen the property of the Corporation but handed over the same to his friend for sale, and that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nexures. In our opinion, the High Court has failed to appreciate that the delinquent employee categorically admitted that he had stolen the property of the Corporation. The Labour Court, on a careful perusal of the evidence, rightly ordered removal of the respondent from service. When the delinquent employee admitted his guilt before the Enquiry Officer that he had handed over the alternator from pan shop to the police authorities and further deposed that he had handed over the stolen property and requested the Labour Court to excuse him since it was his first offence. The Tribunal rightly set aside the request by taking into consideration the entire factual circumstances on record and after careful examination of the same and held that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be safe and in the interest of the Corporation to continue the employee in the service. The punishment, imposed by the management in the facts and circumstances of the case, is not disproportionate and that the punishment of removal from service is the just and reasonable and proportionate to the proved misconduct. In our view, the theft committed by the respondent amounts to misconduct and, therefore, we have no hesitation to set aside the orders passed by the learned Single Judge and also of the Division Bench and restore the order of removal of the respondent from service. When the Labour Court has proved the charges, no interference by the learned Single Judge or by the Division Bench of the High Court was called for. In the instant ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y and generosity cannot be a factor which is permissible in law in such matters. When the employee is found guilty of theft, there is nothing wrong in the Corporation losing confidence or faith in such an employee and awarding punishment of removal. In such cases, there is no place of generosity or place of sympathy on the part of the judicial forums and interfering with the quantum of the punishment. For the aforementioned reasons, we hold that the orders passed by learned Single Judge and as modified and affirmed by the learned Judges of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 108 of 2005 dated 29.06.2005 deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, we do so. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant Corporation stands allowed and orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
