Tajbar Singh v. State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the disciplinary enquiry was held strictly as per the applicable Rules and petitioner was given reasonable opportunity of defending himself.

4. Mr. Shobhit Joshi, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3 points out that petitioner was employed as Driver in Uttarakhand Transport Corporation; he was in the habit of going on leave without prior notice or permission; charge-sheet was also issued to him regarding his unauthorized absence between 15.05.2007 to 30.06.2007 which was duly served upon the petitioner, but he did not submit any reply; report submitted by enquiry officer was supplied to petitioner and he was asked to show cause by issuing a notice, but petitioner neither showed any cause nor made any representation against the findings returned by the enquiry officer.

5. Mr. Shobhit Joshi, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3 further points out that petitioner requested for personal hearing after receiving the show cause notice and he was given time to appear personally before the disciplinary authority, but he failed to present himself for hearing and order of dismissal was passed, based on the findings returned by the enquiry officer.

6. The sole ground for challenging punishment order and also the judgment passed by learned Tribunal is that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is disproportionate to the nature and gravity of charge leveled against the petitioner. 2 Law is well settled that a Constitutional Court or a Tribunal in exercise of power of judicial review cannot go into the question of quantum of punishment nor can they interfere with the punishment only on the ground that it is excessive, unless there is a finding returned, backed by cogent reasons punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate to the charge leveled against the concerned employee. The punishment imposed upon the petitioner cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. As Driver in Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, petitioner was required to report for duties in time and habitual absenteeism cannot be tolerated in any organization. State Transport Corporations have been established to provide timely transport services to the masses and the tendency of absenteeism amongst employees of State Transport Corporation seriously affects the quality of service provided to the masses and also the income of the Corporation.

7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Dehradun Vs. Suresh Pal, reported as (2006) 8 SCC 108, has held as under:- unless “8. Normally, the courts do not substitute the punishment shockingly disproportionate and if the punishment is interfered or substituted lightly in the punishment in exercise of their extraordinary jurisdiction then it will amount to abuse of the process of court. If such kind of misconduct is dealt with lightly and courts start substituting the lighter punishment in exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution then it will give a wrong signal in the Society. All the 3 State Road Transport Corporations in the country have gone in red because of the misconduct of such kind of incumbents, therefore, it is the time that misconduct should be dealt with iron hands and not leniently. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant invited our attention to a decision of this Court in the case of Regional Manager, U.P. SRTC v. Hoti Lal & Anr., reported in [2003] 3 SCC 605, wherein, this Court has very categorically held that a mere statement that it is disproportionate would not suffice to substitute a lighter punishment. This Court held as under: is felt to why "The court or tribunal while dealing with the quantum of punishment has to record reasons as punishment was not commensurate with the proved charges. The scope for interference is very limited and restricted to exceptional cases. In the impugned order of the High Court no reasons whatsoever have been indicated as to why the punishment was considered disproportionate. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. A mere statement that it is disproportionate would not suffice. It is not only the amount involved but the mental set-up, the type of duty performed and similar relevant circumstances which go the decision-making process while considering whether proportionate or disproportionate. charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and inbuilt requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct in such cases has to be dealt with iron hands. Where the person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transactions or acts in a fiduciary capacity, the highest degree integrity and trustworthiness unexceptionable. Judged in that background, conclusions of the Division Bench of the High Court are not proper." the punishment integrity are a If

8. Charge against petitioner as mentioned in the charge-sheet is serious enough, as he remained absent without any information to the employer 4 continuously for 45 days and he did not resume duties even after issuance of charge-sheet. Since, the disciplinary enquiry was held as per the applicable Rules and reasonable opportunity of defending himself was given to the petitioner during disciplinary enquiry, therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. Learned Tribunal rightly refused interfere with quantum of punishment in view of the settled legal position, as discussed above. Thus, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment rendered by learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.

9. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) PN/-

10.03.2025 5