RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. AND ANR.versusTILLA RAM

A     RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. AND ANR.
                                       V.

                                 TILLA RAM

                              AUGUST 25, 2004

B         [ARIJIT PASAYAT AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.]

        Service Law-Termination Order-Trial Court analysing the factual
  position in law and upholding the termination order-Appellate Court
  holding termination order to be illegal and violative of principles of
C natural justice and setting aside the termination order-High Court
  upholding the same-Correctness of-Held: First Appellate Court did not
  consider the matter in proper perspective-It did not indicate as to how
  decisions relied upon by the employer supported the case of employee-
  Such unreasoned and palpably wrong conclusions cannot be supported in
D law-High Court did not consider these aspects and treated conclusions
  of First Appellate Court as that of trial court which is highly improper way
  of dealing with the matter-Hence, matter remitted back to High Court.

       Respondent-employee was appointed as a Conductor with the
  State Road Transport Corporation. He committed some misconduct
E and was terminated from service. Respondent filed suit for declaration
  that termination order was illegal. It was contended that he was
  appointed on permanent basis but no departmental proceedings nor
  inquiry was conducted and also pri~ciple of 'last come first go' was
  also not followed. Trial Court dismiss1Cd the suit holding that the
F employee was appointed on daily wage basis as such there was no need
  of departmental inquiry. Respondent filed an appeal. First Appellate
  Court held the termination order to be illegal and violative of principles
  of natural justice and set aside the order of trial Court. Appellant-
  Ccrporation filed second appeal. Single Judge of High Court dismissed
G the same. Hence the present appeal.
       Appellant contended that the approach of High Court is clearly
  erroneous; that the High Court proceeded on the basis as if trial court
  held that the inquiry against the respondent was not in accordance with
  the principles of natural justice and that the procedure of holding
H enquiry was grossly violative; and that the Appellate Court had held
                                       792
RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TPT. CORPN. v. TILLA RAM [PASAY AT, J.]          793

that the inquiry was not in accordance with the principles of A
natural justice and after referring to the conclusions of the First
Appellate Court, High Court felt that decision given on merits is based
on facts.

     Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
                                                                            B
     HELD : While the trial court had analysed the factual position
in law in great detail and had arrived at the right conclusions, the First
Appellate Court did not consider the matter in the proper perspective.
Some of its conclusions are clearly untenable. It referred to some
judgments referred to by the Corporation and decided in favour of the C
employee but did not indicate as to how decisions relied upon by the
Corporation supported the case of the plaintiff-employee. What was
the ratio in those cases and how they were applicable and helpful to
the employee's case has also not been indicated. Such unreasoned and
palpably wrong conclusions cannot be supported in law. Unfortunately, D
High Court did not consider these aspects. It treated the conclusions
of the First Appellate Court to be that of the trial court which was
certainly a very highly improper way of dealing with the matter.
Therefore, the matter is remitted to High Court to decide in accordance
with law. (795-C-D; 796-C-E]                                               E

     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4032 of
2001.

    From the Judgment and Order dated 25.10.1999 of the Rajasthan F
High Court in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 499 of 1999.

     A.P. Dhamija, H.D. Thanvi, Sarad Singhariia and Sushi! Kr. Jain, for
the Appellant

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                             G

      ARJIT PASAYA T, J.: Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation
(hereinafter referred to as 'Corporation') calls in question legality of the
judgment rendered by learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court
dismissing the second appeal filed by the Corporation.                       H
    794                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A        Background facts necessary for disposal of the appeal in a nutshell
    are as follows :

         The Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'employee') filed a
  civil suit in the Court of the learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division
B and Judicial Magistrate III, Jaipur City, Jaipur. Suit was for declaration that
  the order of termination dated 18.3.1986 passed by the corporation is
  illegal. According to him he was appointed as Conductor on permanent
  basis and on erroneous impression that he was carrying passengers without
  tickets, his services were terminated. He was not departmentally proceeded
C agasinst and no inquiry was conducted, and, therefore, the order of
  termination was illegal and arbitrary. It was further pleaded that the
  principle of "last come first go" was not followed in his case. The
  Corporation took the stand that the employee was appointed on daily wage
  basis. He was not appointed on permanent basis. There was no necessity
D for departmental proceedings or enquifY since he was engaged on a daily
  wage basis, and the engagement was discontinued. In any event there was
  no stigma attached. The Trial Court after consideration of the materials
  brought on record came to hold that the employee was appointed on daily
  wage basis. There was no question of departmental inquiry is case of daily
E wager. The employee had not produced any appointment order to substantiate
  his plea that he was engaged on permanent basis. There was no inquiry
  held and therefore, the question whether the inquiry was proper or not did
   not arise for consideration. The Trial Court did not think it necessrry to
  decide the question of Jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The suit was
  dismissed. The employee preferred an appeal before the First Additional
F District Judge No. V, Jaipur City who by the judgment dated 23.3.1999
   reversed the conclusions of the Trial Court and held that the order of
   termination was illegal and violative of principles of natural Justice and
  employee was entitled to be in the service of the Corporation and he was
   entitled to the monetary and financial consequential benefits.
G
         The Corporation preferred an appeal before the Rajasthan High Court
    and the learned Single Judge as noted above dismissed the second appeal.

        In support of the appeal Mr. Sushi! Kumar Jain, learned counsel
H   submitted that the approach of the High Court is clearly erroneous. It
RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TPT. CORPN. v. TILLA RAM [PASAYAT, J.]             795

recorded findings which are contrary to the materials on record. The High A
Court proceeded on the basis as if the Trial Court held that the inquiry
against the plaintiff was not in accordance with the principles of natural
justice and that the procedure of holding enquiry was grossly violative. The
High Court and the Appellate Court had held that the inquiry was not in
accordance with the principles of natural justice. After referring to the B
conclusions of the First Appellate Court, the High Court felt that decision
given on merits is based on facts.

     None appeared on behalf of respondents in spite of service of notice.

       We find that while the Trial Court had analysed the factual position C
in law in great detail and had arrived at the right conclusion, the First
Appellate Court did not consider the matter in the proper perspective. Some
of its conclusions are clearly untenable. For example on the basic question
as to the validity of the action taken by the Corporation, the First Appellate
Court observed as follows :                                                    D
         "10. The contention of the learned advocate for respondent is that
         the plaintiff was a daily wage worker and was on a temporary post
         and that there is no need for holding the departmental enquiry
         before, terminating him. That in support of the contention the E
         learned advocate has produced the following illustrations before
         me: -

              I.    [1991] S.C.C. 591 State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kaushal
                    Kisore Shukla.                                      F
              2.   A.LR. (1994) Supreme Court 2411 State of Uttar
                   Pradesh v. Prem Lata.

              3.   [1996] 5 S.C.C. 889 KV. Krishnamani v. Lalit Kala
                   Academy.                                          G

              4.   [1996] 1 S.C.C. 560 Satya Narayan v. High Court of
                   Madhya Pradesh and Ors.

              5.   R.L.R. (1990) 2 page 268 Shakti Kant Pathak v. H
    796                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A                       Paschmi Dugadh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd.

                   6.   (1994) 2 W.L.C. Raj. 25 Kanwar Singh v. Union of
                        India"

B         It is to be noted that before the First Appellate Court the Corporation
    was the respondent. After referring to some judgments referred to by the
    Corporation, it inappropriately came to the conclusions that the judgment
    and decree was liable to be appealed and the appeal of the plaintiff was
    liable to be accepted on the basis of the above mentioned illustrations
    (reference was made to the judgments noted above).
c
        Unfortunately, it has not been indicated as to how decisions relied
  upon by the Corporation supported the case of the plaintiff-employee.
  What was the ratio in those cases and how they were applicable and helpful
  to the employee's case has also not been indicated. Such unreasoned and
D palpably wrong conclusions cannot be supported in law. Unfortunately, the
  High Court did not consider these aspects. It confused between the
  conclusions of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. Conclusions
  of the First Appellate Court were treated to be that of the Trial Court. This
  was certainly a very highly improper way of dealing with the matter.
E
          In view of the above, we remit the matter to the High Court to decide
    the appeal in accordance with law after giving due opportunities to the
    parties.

          Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

    NJ.                                                         Appeal allowed.