Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Gajadhar Nath
Background
A bus conductor was dismissed in 2001 after an inspector found that 17 passengers on his bus had paid their fares but were not issued tickets, and alleged the conductor misbehaved with him during the inspection. The Industrial Tribunal found the employer's internal inquiry unfair, but after the employer led fresh evidence (including the inspector's testimony), the Tribunal still ordered the conductor's reinstatement with 50% back wages, reasoning that the inspector should have recorded statements from the passengers themselves. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's order, prompting the employer's appeal to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that both the Tribunal and the High Court were wrong, since the inspector's testimony about the ticketless passengers and the conductor's misbehaviour was never actually challenged in cross-examination, and failure to record individual passengers' names does not, by itself, make otherwise credible testimony unreliable. The Court also rejected the argument that the absence of a police complaint (FIR) against the conductor undermined the misconduct finding, holding that criminal proceedings (or their absence) have no bearing on proving misconduct in a departmental/disciplinary inquiry. Finding the Tribunal's reasons "absolutely perverse and not supported by any evidence," the Court restored the original 2001 dismissal order.
Lesson Learnt
In a workplace disciplinary case, unchallenged and credible witness testimony can be enough to prove misconduct even without statements from every individual affected person, and the fact that no criminal case or FIR was filed over the same conduct does not by itself clear an employee of departmental wrongdoing.