Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.21 seconds)
A Rojapoo vs M/O Communications on 17 February, 2026 cites

Divisional Controller,Ksrtc (Nwkrtc) vs A.T. Mane on 27 September, 2004

20. Coming to the contention of the applicant that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the charges levelled against him, it is worthwhile to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) Vs A.T.Mane 2005 14 OA/310/01845/2016 (3) SCC 254, on the quantum of punishment for misappropriation of funds. Paragraphs 12 and 13, of the judgment are relevant and are extracted as hereunder:
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 213 - Full Document

Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs B.S. Hullikatti on 22 January, 2001

187), the amount said to have been misappropriated was only Rs.360.95. Charges were held as proved. On the quantum of penalty, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, "This Court in a catena of judgments held that the loss of confidence as the primary factor and not the amount of money mis-appropriated and that the 15 OA/310/01845/2016 sympathy or generosity cannot be a factor which is impermissible in law. When an employee is found guilty of pilferage or of mis-appropriating a corporation's funds, there is nothing wrong in the Corporation losing confidence or faith in such an employee and awarding punishment of dismissal. In such cases, there is no place for generosity or misplaced sympathy on the part of the judicial forums and interfering therefore with the quantum of punishment. The judgment in Karnataka State Road Transport Corpn. Vs. B.S. Hullikatti, (2001) 2 SCC 574 was also relied on in this judgment among others. Examination of passengers of 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 mis-conduct 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."
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 254 - Full Document
1