Calling the Situation Grim, the Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance of Delays in NCLT Approvals  ||  Supreme Court: Admission of a Claim by a Resolution Professional is Not Debt Acknowledgment  ||  Supreme Court: Public Figures Must Exercise Caution as Their Words Have Consequences in Society  ||  SC: State Must Act as a Model Employer, Criticising the Union For Not Regularising ISRO Workers  ||  J&K&L High Court: Minor Minerals Have Major Environmental Impacts and Must be Regulated  ||  Del HC: Unexplained Money Received by Public Servant is Not Bribery Without Proof of Official Favour  ||  Del HC: There is No Absolute Bar on Granting Co-Convicts Parole/Furlough Together in Suitable Cases  ||  Bom HC: LARR Authority Can Examine Limitation Issues in Land Acquisition References under 2013 Act  ||  MP HC: Long-Serving Employees Cannot Be Denied Regularisation by Retrospective Statutory Amendments  ||  J&K&L HC: Routine Challenges to Lok Adalat Awards Defeat Their Purpose of Quick Dispute Resolution    

Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vs. Gajadhar Nath - (Supreme Court) (08 Dec 2021)

Where the inquiry is found to be defective, the employer can lead evidence before the authority to prove misconduct

MANU/SC/1200/2021

Service

The order passed by the High Court is the subject matter of challenge in the present appeal at the instance of the employer whereby the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal was not interfered with. The Tribunal directed that, the Respondent be reinstated in service and ordered 50% of the salary to be paid for the period when he was not in employment.

The domestic inquiry conducted can be permitted to be disputed before the Tribunal in terms of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This Court in case of The Workmen of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (Pvt.) Ltd. v. The Management and Ors. held that, in terms of Section 11A of the Act, if a domestic inquiry has been held and finding of misconduct is recorded, the authorities under the Act have full power and jurisdiction to reappraise the evidence and to satisfy themselves whether the evidence justifies the finding of misconduct. But where the inquiry is found to be defective, the employer can lead evidence to prove misconduct before the authority.

The Tribunal or the High Court could not reject the evidence led by the employer in respect of misconduct of the workman before the adjudicator. Still further non lodging of FIR cannot be the circumstance against the witness examined by the employer. The initiation of criminal proceedings against an employee or not initiating the proceedings has no bearing to prove misconduct in departmental proceedings.

Therefore, the order of removal from service cannot be said to be unfair and unjust in any manner which would warrant an interference at the hands of the Tribunal and the High Court. The reasons recorded by the Tribunal are absolutely perverse and not supported by any evidence. The Tribunal had misapplied the basic principles of law and the High Court has thereafter wrongly confirmed the order. The orders of the High Court and of the Tribunal are set aside. Appeal allowed.

Tags : REINSTATEMENT   DIRECTION   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved