Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (1.04 seconds)U.P. State Road Transport Corp vs Suresh Chand Sharma on 26 May, 2010
In
U.P. SRTC v. Suresh Chand Sharma, it was held as under:
Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh vs Krishnan Behari And Ors on 19 February, 1996
In Rajasthan SRTC v. Bajrang Lal, this Court,
following Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh v. Krishnan
Behari, has opined that in cases involving corruption
there cannot be any other punishment than dismissal. It
has been further held that any sympathy shown in such
cases is totally uncalled for and opposed to public
interest. The amount misappropriated may be small or
large; it is the act of misappropriation that is relevant. In
the said case (Rajasthan SRTC), the respondent
employee was awarded punishment of removal from
service. In the present case it is compulsory retirement.
The learned counsel for respondents submitted that on
an earlier occasion, the appellant was awarded a minor
punishment for his misconduct, regarding defalcation of
stamps. And now he is found guilty for the second time."
Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs B.S. Hullikatti on 22 January, 2001
The judgment in Karnataka
SRTC v. B.S. Hullikatti was also relied on in this
judgment among others. Examination of the
passengers of the vehicle from whom the said sum
was collected was also not essential. In our view,
possession of the said excess sum of money on the
part of the respondent , a fact proved, is itself a
misconduct and hence the labour Court and the
learned Judges of the High Court misdirected
themselves in insisting on the evidence of the
passengers which is wholly not essential. This apart,
the respondent did not have any explanation for
having carried the said excess amount. This omission
was sufficient to hold him guilty. This act was so
grossly negligent that the respondent was not fit to be
retained as a conductor because such action or
inaction of his was bound to result in financial loss to
the appellant irrespective of the quantum."
Divisional Controller, N.E.K.R.T.C vs H. Amaresh on 17 July, 2006
6. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of
Divisional Controller, N.E.K.R.T.C. v. H. Amaresh, reported in
(2006) 6 SCC 187, in paragraph no.18 as under:
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs Vinod Kumar on 6 December, 2007
Similar view
has been reiterated in U.P. SRTC v. Vinod Kumar and
U.P. SRTC v. Suresh Chand Sharma."
Rajasthan State Tpt Corpn. & Anr vs Bajrang Lal on 14 March, 2014
In Rajasthan SRTC v. Bajrang Lal, this Court,
following Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh v. Krishnan
Behari, has opined that in cases involving corruption
there cannot be any other punishment than dismissal. It
has been further held that any sympathy shown in such
cases is totally uncalled for and opposed to public
interest. The amount misappropriated may be small or
large; it is the act of misappropriation that is relevant. In
the said case (Rajasthan SRTC), the respondent
employee was awarded punishment of removal from
service. In the present case it is compulsory retirement.
The learned counsel for respondents submitted that on
an earlier occasion, the appellant was awarded a minor
punishment for his misconduct, regarding defalcation of
stamps. And now he is found guilty for the second time."
Section 10 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Guj State Road Transport Corpn. vs S.T. Karmachari Mandal on 5 August, 2003
In Karnataka SRTC v. A.T. Mane in which
unaccounted amount was only Rs 93 this Court
expressed its opinion in para 12 as under: (SCC p. 259)
"12. Coming to the question of quantum of
punishment, one should bear in mind the fact that it is
not the amount of money misappropriated that becomes
a primary factor for awarding punishment; on the
contrary, it is the loss of confidence which is the primary
factor to be taken into consideration. In our opinion,
when a person is found guilty of misappropriating the
corporation's funds, there is nothing wrong in the
corporation losing confidence or faith in such a person
and awarding a punishment of dismissal."
Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra on 15 March, 2013
In Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal v. State of
Maharashtra, this Court has made following observations
in para 25 of the judgment: (SCC p. 654)
"25. ... In the present day scenario, corruption has
been treated to have the potentiality of corroding the
marrows of the economy. There are cases where the
amount is small, and in certain cases, it is extremely
high. The gravity of the offence in such a case, in our
considered opinion, is not to be adjudged on the bedrock
of the quantum of bribe. An attitude to abuse the official
position to extend favour in lieu of benefit is a crime
against the collective and an anathema to the basic
tenets of democracy, for it erodes the faith of the people
in the system. It creates an incurable concavity in the
rule of law."