SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Uttaranchal Road Transport Corporation and Others
Vs
Mansaram Nainwal
Appeal (Civil) 3179 of 2006 (Arising Out of Slp ( C ) No. 162 of 2006)
(Arijit Pasayat and L. S. Panta, JJ)
28.07.2006
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
Leave granted.
Appellants call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a learned
Single Judge of the Uttaranchal High Court. By the impugned judgment, the
learned Single Judge set aside the order of termination passed by appellant
No.2 and directed re-instatement of the respondent in service with continuity
of service, but without back wages.
Factual background needs to be noted in brief.
The respondent was appointed as Driver in appellant No.1-U.P. State Road
Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation'). On
10.10.1990 while the respondent was plying the bus No. UGA 938 on Mussoorie
road, all of a sudden the vehicle met with an accident and fell into a ditch.
Thereafter, a disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the respondent in
which the charges against the respondent were found proved and the appellant
vide its order dated 31.3.1993 dismissed the respondent from service.
Thereafter, the respondent filed an appeal before appellant No.2, which was
rejected on 30.6.1993. Thereafter, the respondent raised an industrial dispute
under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(in short the 'Act'). The industrial dispute decided by the award was referred
in the following terms:-
"Whether the termination of the services of applicant/workman Sri
Mansaram Nainwal s/o Visheshware Dutt Nainwal, driver by the employers from
31.3.1993 is unjustified and/or illegal? If so, to which benefit/compensation
the applicant/workman is entitled and to what extent?"
The Labour Court issued notice to the parties. The appellants and the
respondent filed their written statement/objection. The stand of appellants
before the Labour Court was that the respondent was appointed as a Driver. On
10.10.1990 when he was plying the bus No. UGA 938 on Dehradun-Mussoorie Road,
due to his rash and negligent driving, the bus fell into the ditch in which 12
persons died and some other persons got seriously injured and the bus was also
got damaged as a result of which the Corporation suffered a huge loss of Rs.2,
50, 000/-. It was also pleaded that the respondent was charge sheeted and a
departmental enquiry was held against him in which full opportunity of hearing
was provided to the respondent. In the enquiry, the charges against the
respondent were found proved and he was removed from the service.
On the other hand, the respondent in his written statement accepted that he was
served charge sheet and a departmental enquiry was also held against him. But
he pleaded that the necessary documents were not being produced though demand
was made several times. The Investigating Officer found him not guilty in the
enquiry, even though he was dismissed from service.
Labour Court found the respondent guilty and held that the termination was not
unjustified.
Challenging the order of Labour Court, the respondent filed a Writ Petition
which, as noted above, was allowed by the impugned judgment. The foundation of
the High Court's judgment was to the effect that in the criminal trial the
respondent was acquitted and placing reliance on a decision of this Court in
Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Anr. the order of
termination was set aside.
In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
ratio in Anthony's case (supra) has no application to the facts of the present
case. It has not even been indicated as to how the factual position is similar.
In any event, acquittal in a criminal case does not lead to an automatic
re-instatement and also does not render the departmental proceedings invalid.
It was, therefore, submitted that the High Court was clearly wrong in its
conclusion.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the
departmental authorities in the enquiry conducted against the respondent had
clearly found that he was not responsible for the accident and there was no
misconduct involved.
The position in law relating to acquittal in a criminal case, its effect on
departmental proceedings and re- instatement in service has been dealt with by
this Court in Union of India and Anr. v. Bihari Lal Sidhana 7. It was held in paragraph 5 as follows:
"5. It is true that the respondent was acquitted by the criminal court
but acquittal does not automatically give him the right to be re- instated into
the service. It would still be open to the competent authority to take decision
whether the delinquent government servant can be taken into service or
disciplinary action should be taken under the Central Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules or under the Temporary Service
Rules. Admittedly, the respondent had been working as a temporary government
servant before he was kept under suspension. The termination order indicated
the factum that he, by then, was under suspension. It is only a way of
describing him as being under suspension when the order came to be passed but
that does not constitute any stigma. Mere acquittal of government employee does
not automatically entitle the government servant to reinstatement. As stated
earlier, it would be open to the appropriate competent authority to take a
decision whether the enquiry into the conduct is required to be done before
directing reinstatement or appropriate action should be taken as per law, if
otherwise, available. Since the respondent is only a temporary government
servant, the power being available under Rule 5(1) of the Rules, it is always
open to the competent authority to invoke the said power and terminate the
services of the employee instead of conducting the enquiry or to continue in
service a government servant accused of defalcation of public money. Re-
instatement would be a charter for him to indulge with impunity in
misappropriation of public money."
The ratio of Anthony's case (supra) can be culled out from paragraph 22 of the
judgment which reads as follows:
"The conclusions which are deducible from various decisions of this
Court referred to above are:
(i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously
as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately.
(ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on
identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against
the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated
questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental
proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case.
(iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether
complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case, will depend
upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case launched against the
employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during
investigation or as reflected in the charge sheet.
(iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in
isolation to stay the departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given
to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed.
(v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly
delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were stayed on account of
the pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to
conclude them at an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his
honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, the administration may
get rid of him at the earliest."
Though the High Court had not indicated as to how the decision of this Court in
Anthony's case (supra) laid down as a matter of law that whenever there is
acquittal in a criminal trial re-instatement is automatic, in all probabilities
basis was para 36 of Anthony's case (supra) which reads as follows:
"36. for the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed, the impugned
judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside and that
of the learned Single Judge, insofar as it purports to allow the writ petition,
is upheld. The learned Single Judge has also given liberty to the respondents
to initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings. In the peculiar circumstances of
the case, specially having regard to the fact that the appellant is undergoing
this agony since 1985 despite having been acquitted by the criminal court in
1987, we would not direct any fresh departmental enquiry to be instituted
against him on the same set of facts. The appellant shall be reinstated
forthwith on the post of Security Officer and shall also be paid the entire
arrears of salary, together with all allowances from the date of suspension
till his reinstatement, within three months. The appellant would also be
entitled to his cost which is quantified at Rs.15, 000/-."
(underlined for emphasis)
The High Court unfortunately did not discuss the factual aspects and by merely
placing reliance on earlier decision of the Court held that reinstatement was
mandated. Reliance on the decision without looking into the factual background
of the case before it is clearly impermissible. A decision is a precedent
on its own facts. Each case presents its own features. It is not everything
said by a Judge while giving judgment that constitutes a precedent. The only
thing in a Judge's decision binding a party is the principle upon which the
case is decided and for this reason it is important to analyse a decision and
isolate from it the ratio decidendi. According to the well-settled theory of
precedents, every decision contains three basic postulates (i) findings of
material facts, direct and inferential. An inferential finding of facts is the
inference which the Judge draws from the direct, or perceptible facts; (ii)
statements of the principles of law applicable to the legal problems disclosed
by the facts; and (iii) judgment based on the combined effect of the above. A decision
is an authority for what it actually decides. What is of the essence in a
decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein nor what
logically flows from the various observations made in the judgment. The
enunciation of the reason or principle on which a question before a Court has
been decided is alone binding as a precedent. (See: State of Orissa v. Sudhansu
Sekhar Misra and Ors. and Union of India and Ors. v. Dhanwanti Devi and
Ors. 8. A case is a precedent and binding for
what it explicitly decides and no more. The words used by Judges in their
judgments are not to be read as if they are words in an Act of Parliament. In
Quinn v. Leathem 1901 AC 495 (H.L.), Earl of Halsbury LC observed that
every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved or
assumed to be proved, since the generality of the expressions which are found
there are not intended to be exposition of the whole law but governed and
qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are
found and a case is only an authority for what it actually decides.
Unfortunately, the High Court has not discussed the factual scenario as to how
the Anthony's case (supra) had any application. As noted above, the position in
law relating to acquittal in a criminal case and question of re-instatement has
been dealt with in Sidhana's case (supra). As the High Court had not dealt with
the factual scenario and as to how the Anthony's case (supra) helps the
respondent, we think it appropriate to remit the matter back to the High Court
for fresh consideration. Since the matter is pending for long, it would be in
the interest of the parties if the High Court is requested to dispose of the
writ petition within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of this
order.
The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.