Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9933  OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.7083 of 2010)

The Divisional Controller, KSRTC       …. Appellant

                                               Versus

M.G. Vittal Rao …. Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J

1. Leave granted.

2. This  appeal  has been preferred against  the  judgment and  order  

dated 27.10.2009 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in  

Writ  Appeal  No.702  of  2009,  by  which  it  has  dismissed  the  appeal  

preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 27.1.2009  

passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition No. 14354

of  2007 of  the  respondent-workman against  the  Award of  the  Labour  

Court dated 17.2.2005.

3. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are:-

(A) The  respondent  employee  while  working  as  helper  in  the  

appellant-Corporation  in  1986  was  subjected  to  disciplinary  

proceedings vide charge-sheet dated 4.2.1987 which contained  

the  article  of  charges  mainly  on  the  allegations  that  on  

3.10.1986 the respondent stayed away beyond his duty hours at  

his place of employment i.e., Divisional Workshop and opened  

the door of the blacksmith Section with the aid of a duplicate  

key  and  pulled  the  gas  cylinder  trolley  and  equipment  from  

blacksmith  Section  to  the  cash  room  alongwith  four  other  

employees of the appellant-Corporation and opened the inner  

door of the cash room by cutting the padlock and used the gas  

cylinder equipment for committing the theft from cash chest.

(B) The  Divisional  Traffic  Officer  was  appointed  as  the  enquiry  

officer  by  the  Disciplinary  Authority  vide  order  dated  

11.11.1993  to  enquire  into  the  charges  leveled  against  the  

respondent in the disciplinary proceedings.  During the course  

of  enquiry,  the  management  witnesses  clearly  stated  that  the  

respondent was present at the place of incident.  On the basis of  

2

the material produced on behalf of the management, the enquiry  

officer found the charges leveled against the respondent proved  

and accordingly the enquiry report was filed.

(C) The  Disciplinary  Authority  after  considering  the  material  on  

record  concurred  with  the  findings  recorded  by  the  Inquiry  

Officer and after completing the legal formalities imposed the  

punishment of dismissal of the respondent from service w.e.f.  

14.2.1997.

(D) The respondent raised the industrial  dispute.   Thus,  the State  

Government made a Reference to the Principal  Labour Court  

for  adjudication  of  the  dispute  and  the  same  came  to  be  

registered  as  Reference  No.6  of  1999.   On  the  basis  of  

pleadings,  the  Labour  Court  framed  various  issues  for  its  

consideration, inter-alia, as to whether the departmental enquiry  

conducted against the respondent was fair and proper.

(E) The Labour Court by its order dated 20.11.2004 arrived at the  

conclusion that the departmental enquiry conducted against the  

respondent was fair and proper.  By its award dated 17.2.2005,  

the Court answered the reference in negative holding that there  

was sufficient evidence before the enquiry officer to hold that  

the   respondent  with  his  colluders  had  actively  involved  in  

breaking and opening the door of the cash room and drilling the  

3

cash chest to commit the theft.  The respondent was caught red  

handed and hence the charges were rightly held to be proved.  

(F) Being aggrieved  by the  said award of  the  Labour  Court,  the  

respondent filed W.P. No.14354 of 2007(LK) before the High  

Court  which stood allowed by the learned Single Judge vide  

order  dated  27.1.2009  to  the  extent  that  the  order  of  the  

dismissal  was  modified  into  an  order  of  termination.   The  

management was directed to pay the terminal benefits since the  

respondent  had  retired  from  service.   However,  the  learned  

Single Judge arrived at the conclusion that the respondent was  

not entitled to any wages or other monetary benefits till the date  

of his termination.   

(G) Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned Single Judge,  

the respondent filed a Writ Appeal No.702 of 2009 (L-KSRTC)  

under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act.  The Division  

Bench  vide  impugned  judgment  and  order  dated  27.10.2009  

allowed the appeal filed by the respondent quashing the award  

of  the  Labour  Court  and  reversing  the  order  of  the  learned  

Single Judge.  The Division Bench proceeded to hold that the  

respondent  was  entitled  to  be reinstated into  service  with  all  

consequential  benefits.   However,  since  the  respondent  had  

retired from service, he was entitled to 50% of the backwages  

4

for the periods from 14.2.1997 (i.e. the date of dismissal) till the  

date of his retirement (i.e. 31.7.2007).  He was also entitled to  

consequential benefits of retirement.     

            Hence, this appeal.         

4. Mr.  S.N. Bhat,  learned counsel   appearing for the appellant  has  

submitted that the Labour Court rejected the contention on behalf  of the  

respondent-workman that he was entitled for re-instatement and all other  

consequential reliefs in view of the fact that he stood acquitted by the  

Criminal  Court.  However,  the  learned  Single  Judge  as  well  as  the  

Division Bench in appeal have accepted his contention and granted the  

reliefs.  The  standard  of  proof  in  domestic  enquiry  and  criminal  

proceedings are different and mere acquittal by the Criminal Court  does  

not entitle the delinquent for exonerating in the disciplinary proceedings.  

Thus, the appeal deserves to be allowed.  

5. On the contrary, Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, learned counsel appearing  

for  the  respondent-workman  has  made  all  attempts  to  defend  the  

judgments  of  the  learned Single  Judge as  well  as  the  Division  Bench  

contending  that  as  the  workman  has  been  acquitted  in  the  criminal  

proceedings, the order of dismissal as a consequence of domestic enquiry  

deserves to be set aside. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no  

interference is warranted.  

5

6. We have considered the rival submissions advanced on behalf of  

the parties and perused the record.  

7. It is evident from the record that when the respondent-workman  

was facing disciplinary proceedings at the same time he had also faced  

the criminal trial for the offences punishable under Sections 457 , 381  

read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called as  

‘IPC’). The Metropolitan Magistrate convicted the delinquent employee  

holding him guilty of the said charges and sentenced him with a simple  

imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs. 500/-.  The  

respondent-workman filed  appeal  against  the  said  order  of  conviction.  

However,  the  appeal  was  also  dismissed  by  the  Appellate  Court  vide  

judgment and order dated 5.4.1994. The delinquent employee along with  

other co-accused preferred Criminal Revision No. 299 of 1994  before the  

High Court which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 9.7.1997.  

Thus, the High Court acquitted the said delinquent employee of all the  

charges leveled against him.  

Thus, the question does arise as to whether in this backdrop the  

respondent-employee is entitled for the relief granted by the High Court.  

6

DEPARTMENTAL  ENQUIRY  AND  ACQUITTAL  IN  CRIMINAL CASE

8. The  question  of  considering  reinstatement  after  decision  of  

acquittal or discharge by a competent criminal Court arises only and only  

if the dismissal from services was based on conviction by the criminal  

Court in view of the provisions of Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution  

of India, 1950, or analogous provisions in the statutory rules applicable in  

a  case.  In  a  case  where  enquiry  has  been  held  independently  of  the  

criminal proceedings, acquittal in a criminal Court is of no help. The law  

is  otherwise.  Even  if  a  person  stood  acquitted  by  a  criminal  Court,  

domestic enquiry can be held, the reason being that the standard of proof  

required in a domestic enquiry and that in a criminal case are altogether  

different.  In  a  criminal  case,  standard  of  proof   required  is  beyond  

reasonable doubt while in a domestic enquiry it is the preponderance of  

probabilities that constitutes the test to be applied.  In  Nelson Motis v.  

Union of India & Anr., AIR 1992 SC 1981, this Court held :

“The  nature  and  scope  of  a  criminal  case  are  very   different  from  those  of  a  departmental  disciplinary   proceeding  and an order  of  acquittal,  therefore,  cannot   conclude the departmental proceeding.”

9. In State of Karnataka & Anr. v.  T. Venkataramanappa, (1996)  

6 SCC 455, this Court held that acquittal in a criminal case cannot be held  

7

to be a bar to hold departmental enquiry for the same misconduct for the  

reason that in a criminal trial, standard of proof is different as the case is  

to  be  proved  beyond  reasonable  doubt  but  in  the  departmental  

proceeding, such a strict proof of misconduct is not required.  

10. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. K. Allabaksh, (2000) 10 SCC 177,  

while  dismissing  the  appeal  against  acquittal  by  the  High  Court,  this  

Court observed as under:–

“That acquittal of the respondent shall not be construed as   a clear exoneration of the respondent, for the allegations   call for departmental proceedings, if not already initiated,   against him.”

11. While dealing with a similar issue, a three-Judges Bench of this  

Court  in  Ajit  Kumar  Nag  v.  General  Manager  (PJ)  Indian  Oil  

Corporation Ltd., (2005) 7 SCC 764, held as under:–

“In our judgment, the law is fairly well settled. Acquittal   by a criminal Court would not  debar an employer from  exercising  power  in  accordance  with  the  Rules  and   Regulations in force. The two proceedings, criminal and  departmental,  are  entirely  different.  They  operate  in   different fields and have different objectives. Whereas the   object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment   on the offender, the purpose of enquiry proceedings is to   deal  with  the  delinquent  departmentally  and  to  impose   penalty in accordance with the service rules. In a criminal   trial,  incriminating  statement  made  by  the  accused  in   certain circumstances or before certain officers is totally   inadmissible in evidence. Such strict rules of evidence and  procedure would not apply to departmental proceedings.   The  degree  of  proof  which  is  necessary  to  order  a   

8

conviction is different from the degree of proof necessary   to record the commission of delinquency. The rule relating   to appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also   not  similar.  In  criminal  law,  burden  of  proof  is  on  the   prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the   guilt  of  the  accused  “beyond  reasonable  doubt”,  he   cannot be convicted by a Court of law. In a departmental   enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be imposed on the   delinquent  officer on a finding recorded on the basis  of   “preponderance of probability.”

12. The issue as to whether disciplinary proceedings can be held at the  

time when the delinquent employee is facing the criminal trial, has also  

been considered from time to time. In State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena  

&  Ors.,  AIR  1997  SC  13, this  Court  while  dealing  with  the  issue  

observed as under:–

“It would be evident from the above decisions that each  of  them  starts  with  the  indisputable  proposition  that   there  is  no  legal  bar  for  both  proceedings  to  go  on  simultaneously and then say that in certain situations, it   may not be ‘desirable’,  ‘advisable’ or ‘appropriate’ to   proceed with  the disciplinary enquiry when a criminal  case  is  pending  on  identical  charges...........The  only   ground suggested in the above decisions as constituting   a valid ground for staying the disciplinary proceedings is   that  ‘the defence of  the employee in the criminal  case   may not be prejudiced’. This ground has, however, been  hedged in by providing further that this may be done in   cases  of  grave  nature  involving  questions  of  fact  and   law. In our respectful opinion, it means that not only the   charges  must  be  grave but  that  the  case  must  involve   complicated  questions  of  law  and  fact.  Moreover,   ‘advisability’,  ‘desirability’  or  ‘propriety’,  as  the  case  may be,  has to be determined in each case taking into   consideration  all  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  the  case............One of the contending considerations is that   

9

the disciplinary enquiry cannot be – and should not be –  delayed unduly. So far as criminal cases are concerned,   it is well known that they drag on endlessly where high  officials  or  persons  holding  high  public  offices  are   involved.  They  get  bogged  down  on  one  or  the  other  ground.  They  hardly  ever  reach  a  prompt   conclusion..........If a criminal case is unduly delayed that   may itself  be a good ground for going ahead with the   disciplinary  enquiry  even  where  the  disciplinary   proceedings  are  held  over  at  an  earlier  stage.  The   interests of administration and good government demand  that  these  proceedings  are  concluded  expeditiously.  It   must  be  remembered  that  interests  of  administration  demand that  undesirable  elements  are  thrown out  and  any charge of misdemeanour is enquired into promptly.   The disciplinary  proceedings  are  meant  not  really  to  punish  the  guilty  but  to  keep  the  administrative   machinery unsullied by getting rid of bad elements. The  interest  of  delinquent  officer  also  lies  in  a  prompt   conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. If he is not   guilty of the charges, his honour should be vindicated at   the earliest possible moment and if he is guilty, he should  be dealt with promptly according to law. It is not also in   the  interest  of  administration  that  persons  accused  of   serious  misdemeanour  should  be  continued  in  office   indefinitely, i.e., for long periods awaiting the result of   criminal  proceedings.  It  is  not  in  the  interest  of   administration.  It  only  serves  the interest  of  the  guilty   and dishonest........”     (Emphasis added)

13. In Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., AIR 1999  

SC 1416, this Court held that there can be no bar for continuing both the  

proceedings  simultaneously.  The  Court  placed  reliance  upon  a  large  

number  of  its  earlier  judgments,  including  Delhi  Cloth  and  General  

Mills Ltd. v. Kushal Bhan, AIR 1960 SC 806; Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd.  

v. The Workmen, AIR 1965 SC 155; Jang Bahadur Singh v. Baij Nath  

1

Tiwari, AIR 1969 SC 30; Kusheshwar Dubey v. M/s. Bharat Coking  

Coal Ltd. & Ors., AIR 1988 SC 2118; Nelson Motis (Supra); and B.K.  

Meena (Supra),  and  held  that  proceedings  in  a  criminal  case  and  

departmental proceedings can go on simultaneously except where both  

the proceedings are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in  

both the proceedings is common. In departmental proceedings, factors  

prevailing in the mind of the disciplinary authority may be many, such as  

enforcement  of  discipline  or  to  investigate  level  of  integrity  of  

delinquent or other staff. The  standard of proof required in those  

proceedings  is  also  different  from  that  required  in  a  criminal  case.  

While  in  departmental  proceedings,  the  standard  of  proof  is  one  of  

preponderance of probabilities, in a criminal case, the charge has to be  

proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Where the charge  

against  the  delinquent  employee  is  of  a  grave  nature  which  involves  

complicated  questions  of  law  and  fact,  it  is  desirable  to  stay  the  

departmental proceedings till conclusion of the criminal case. In case  

the  criminal  case  does  not  proceed  expeditiously,  the  departmental  

proceedings cannot be kept in abeyance for ever and may be resumed and  

proceeded with so as to conclude the same at an early date. The purpose  

is that if the employee is found not guilty his cause may be vindicated,  

and in case he is found guilty, administration may get rid of him at the  

earliest.

1

However,  while  deciding  the  case,  taking into  consideration the  

facts involved therein, the Court held:

“Since  the  facts  and  the  evidence  in  both  the   proceedings, namely, the departmental proceedings and  the criminal case were the same without there being any   iota of difference, the distinction, which is usually drawn  as  between  the  departmental  proceedings  and  the  criminal case on the basis of approach and burden of   proof, would not be applicable to the instant case.”

14. In  State Bank of India & Ors. v. R.B. Sharma, AIR 2004 SC  

4144, same view has been reiterated observing that both proceedings can  

be  held  simultaneously,  except  where  departmental  proceedings  in  

criminal case are based on same set of facts and evidence in both the  

proceedings is common. The Court observed as under:–

“The purpose of departmental inquiry and of prosecution   are  to  put  a  distinct  aspect.  Criminal  prosecution  is   launched  for  an  offence  for  violation  of  duty.  The   offender owes to the society, or for breach of which law   has provided that the offender shall make satisfaction to  the public. So crime is an act of commission in violation  of law or of omission of a public duty. The departmental   inquiry  is  to  maintain  discipline  in  the  service  and   efficiency of public service.”  

15. While deciding the said case a very heavy reliance has been placed  

upon  the  earlier  judgment  of  this  Court  in  Depot  Manager,  Andhra  

Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v.  Mohd Yousuf Miya &  

Ors., AIR 1997 SC 2232, wherein it has been held that both proceedings  

1

can  be  held  simultaneously  unless  the  gravity  of  the  charges  demand  

staying  the  disciplinary  proceedings  till  the  trial  is  concluded  as  

complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case.

16. A  similar  view  has  been  reiterated  by  this  Court  in  Senior  

Superintendent  of  Post  Offices  v.  A.  Gopalan, AIR  1999  SC 1514;  

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors. v. T. Srinivas, AIR 2004 SC  

4127;  Krishnakali Tea Estate v. Akhil Bhartiya Chah Mazdoor Sangh  

& Anr., (2004) 8 SCC 200;  Commissioner of Police Delhi v. Narendra  

Singh, AIR 2006 SC 1800; South Bengal State Transport Corporation  

v. Span Kumar Mitra & Ors., (2006) 2 SCC 584; and  Punjab Water  

Supply & Sewerage Board v. Ram Sajivan, (2007) 9 SCC 86.  

17. In Union of India & Ors. v. Naman Singh Shekhawat, (2008) 4  

SCC 1, this Court held that departmental proceeding can be initiated after  

acquittal by the Criminal Court. However, the departmental proceeding  

should  be  initiated  provided  the  department  intended  to  adduce  any  

evidence which could prove the charges against the delinquent officer.  

Therefore,  initiation  of  proceeding  should  be  bona  fide  and  must  be  

reasonable and fair.

1

18. In Pandiyan Roadways Corpn. Ltd. v. N. Balakrishnan, (2007)  

9  SCC 755,  this  Court  re-considered the  issue taking into  account  all  

earlier judgments and observed as under:  

“There are evidently two lines of decisions of this Court   operating in the field. One being the cases which would  come  within  the  purview  of  Capt.  M.  Paul  Anthony  v.   Bharat Gold Mines Ltd (supra), and G.M. Tank v. State   of Gujarat, (2006) 5 SCC C446.  However, the second line  of  decisions  show  that  an  honourable  acquittal  in  the   criminal case itself may not be held to be determinative in   respect of order of punishment meted out to the delinquent   officer, inter alia, when: (i) the order of acquittal has not   been  passed  on  the  same  set  of  facts  or  same  set  of   evidence;  (ii)  the  effect  of  difference  in  the  standard of   proof in a criminal trial and disciplinary proceeding has   not been considered (See: Commr. of Police v. Narender  Singh, (supra)  or;  where  the  delinquent  officer  was  charged with something more than the subject-matter of   the criminal case and/or covered by a decision of the civil   court (See:  G.M. Tank, (supra),  Jasbir Singh v. Punjab  &  Sind  Bank,  (2007)  1  SCC  566;  and  Noida  Entrepreneurs' Assn. v. Noida, (2007) 10 SCC 385,  para  18)………..We may not be understood to have laid down a  law that in all such circumstances the decision of the civil   court  or  the  criminal  court  would  be  binding  on  the  disciplinary authorities as this Court in a large number of   decisions  points  out  that  the  same  would  depend  upon   other factors as well. (See:  e.g.  Krishnakali Tea Estate   (supra); and Manager, Reserve Bank of India v. S. Mani,   (2005) 5 SCC 100). . Each case is, therefore, required to   be considered on its own facts.”

(See also:  Ram Tawekya Sharma v. State of Bihar & Ors., (2008) 8  SCC 261; and  Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank & Ors.,  (2009) 2 SCC 570).

1

19. Thus, there can be no doubt regarding the settled legal proposition  

that as the standard of proof in both the proceedings is quite different, and  

the  termination  is  not  based  on  mere  conviction of  an employee  in  a  

criminal case, the acquittal of the employee in criminal case cannot be the  

basis of taking away the effect of departmental proceedings. Nor can such  

an action of the department be termed as double jeopardy. The judgment  

of this Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra)  does not lay down the  

law of universal application. Facts, charges and nature of evidence etc.  

involved in an individual case would determine as to whether decision of  

acquittal would have any bearing on the findings recorded in the domestic  

enquiry.   

LOSS OF CONFIDENCE

20. Once the employer has lost the confidence in the employee and the  

bona fide loss of confidence is affirmed, the order of punishment must be  

considered to be immune from challenge, for the reason that discharging  

the office of trust and confidence requires absolute integrity, and in a case  

of loss of confidence, reinstatement cannot be directed. (Vide: Air India  

Corporation Bombay v. V.A. Ravellow, AIR 1972 SC 1343; Francis  

Kalein & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, AIR 1971 SC 2414; and  

Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. M. Chandrashekhar Reddy & Ors.,  

AIR 2005 SC 2769).  

1

In  Kanhaiyalal Agrawal & Ors. v. Factory Manager, Gwaliar  

Sugar Co. Ltd., AIR 2001 SC 3645, this Court laid down the test for loss  

of  confidence  to  find  out  as  to  whether  there  was  bona  fide  loss  of  

confidence in the employee, observing that, (i) the workman is holding  

the  position of  trust  and confidence;  (ii)  by abusing such position,  he  

commits act which results in forfeiting the same; and (iii) to continue him  

in service/establishment would be embarrassing and inconvenient to the  

employer,  or  would be detrimental  to the discipline or  security of the  

establishment. Loss of confidence cannot be subjective, based upon the  

mind of the management. Objective facts which would lead to a definite  

inference  of  apprehension  in  the  mind  of  the  management,  regarding  

trustworthiness  or  reliability  of  the  employee,  must  be  alleged  and  

proved.

(See also:  Sudhir Vishnu Panvalkar v.  Bank of India, AIR 1997 SC  2249).  

21. In State Bank of India & Anr. v. Bela Bagchi & Ors., AIR 2005  

SC  3272,   this  Court  repelled  the  contention  that  even  if  by  the  

misconduct of the employee the employer does not suffer any financial  

loss,  he can be removed from service in a case of loss of confidence.  

While deciding the said case, reliance has been placed upon its earlier  

1

judgment  in  Disciplinary  Authority-cum-Regional  Manager  v.  

Nikunja Bihari Patnaik, (1996) 9 SCC 69.

22. An employer is  not bound to keep an employee in service with  

whom  relations  have  reached  the  point  of  complete  loss  of  

confidence/faith between the two. (Vide: Binny Ltd. v. Their Workmen  

& Anr., AIR 1972 SC 1975;  The Binny Ltd. v. Their Workmen, AIR  

1973  SC  1403; Anil  Kumar  Chakraborty  &  Anr.  v.  M/s.  

Saraswatipur  Tea  Company  Ltd.  &  Ors.,  AIR  1982  SC  1062;    

Chandu  Lal  v.  The  Management  of  M/s.  Pan  American  World  

Airways  Inc.,  AIR  1985  SC  1128; Kamal  Kishore  Lakshman  v.  

Management of M/s. Pan American World Airways Inc. & Ors., AIR  

1987 SC 229;  and M/s. Pearlite Liners Pvt. Ltd. v. Manorama Sirsi,  

AIR 2004 SC 1373).

In Indian Airlines Ltd. v. Prabha D. Kanan, AIR 2007 SC 548,  

while  dealing  with  the  similar  issue  this  Court  held  that  “loss  of  

confidence cannot be subjective but there must be objective facts which  

would lead to a definite inference of apprehension in the mind of  the  

employer regarding trustworthiness of the employee and which must be  

alleged and proved.”  

1

  In case of theft, the quantum of theft is not important and what  

is important is the loss of confidence of employer in employee. (Vide:  

A.P. SRTC v.  Raghuda Shiva Sankar Prasad, AIR 2007 SC 152).

23. The  instant  case  requires  to  be  examined  in  the  light  of  the  

aforesaid  settled  legal  proposition  and  keeping  in  view  that  judicial  

review is concerned  primarily with the decision making process and not  

the decision itself. More so,  it is a settled legal proposition that in a case  

of misconduct of grave nature like corruption, theft, no punishment other  

than  the  dismissal  may  be  appropriate.  (Vide:  Pandiyan  Roadways  

Corpn. Ltd. (supra);  and U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v.  

Suresh Chand Sharma,   (2010) 6 SCC 555).   

24. The domestic enquiry found the delinquent employee guilty of all  

the  charges.   The  enquiry  report  was  accepted  by  the  Disciplinary  

Authority and there is no grievance on behalf of the respondent-workman  

that  statutory  provisions/principles  of  natural  justice  have  not  been  

observed  while  conducting  the  enquiry.  The  Disciplinary  Authority  

imposed the punishment of dismissal from service which cannot be held  

to  be  disproportionate  or  non-commensurate  to  the  delinquency.   The  

Labour Court after reconsidering the whole case came to the conclusion  

that the enquiry has been conducted strictly in accordance with law in a  

fair manner and charges have rightly been proved against the delinquent  

1

employee. However,  considering the difference in the standard of proof  

required in domestic enquiry, vis-à-vis that applicable to a criminal case,  

the Labour Court repelled the argument of respondent-workman that once  

he stood acquitted he was entitled for all reliefs including re-instatement  

and back wages.   The learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench  

had simply decided the  case  taking into  consideration the  acquittal  of  

delinquent employee and nothing else.  

25. In view of the aforesaid settled legal propositions that there is no  

finding  by  the  High  Court  that  the  charges  leveled  in  the  domestic  

enquiry had been the same which were in the criminal trial;  the witnesses  

had been the  same;   there  were  no additional  or  extra  witnesses;  and  

without  considering the gravity of the charge, we are of the view  that the  

award of the Labour Court did not warrant any interference.  

            Be that as it may, the learned Single Judge had granted relief to  

the  delinquent  employee  which  was  not  challenged  by  the  present  

appellant  by filing writ appeal. Therefore,  the delinquent employee is  

entitled for the said relief.  

26.    In view of the above, we dispose of the appeal holding that the  

delinquent employee shall  be entitled only to the relief granted by the  

writ court and the judgment and order of the court in writ appeal  is set  

1

aside.  The benefit of the judgment of the learned Single Judge may be  

made available to the delinquent employee within a period of 4 months  

from the date of production of the certified copy of the order before the  

appellant.   There shall be no order as to costs.  

……………………….J. (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)

      …… …………………..J.

(T.S. THAKUR)

New Delhi,  November 18, 2011

2