U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORP. &ANR.versusGOPAL SHUKLA & ANR.

                   [2015] 10 S.C.R. 423


     U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORP. &ANR.                     A
                             v.
                 GO PAL SHUKLA & ANR.
              (Civil Appeal No.2038 of2012)
                  SEPTEMBER 01, 2015                           B

     [DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.]

    U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1'947 - s. 6(2-A) - Bus
conductor with appellant-Corporation carried 25 passengers
without ticket - Disciplinary proceedings - Dismissal from     C
service - Industrial dispute raised - Labour court set aside
the dismissal order and passed the award relating to
reinstatement holding that the allegation of personal gain
and corruption was not established - High Court upheld the
                                                               0
award- On appeal, held: The said misconduct does not stand
on a lesser footing than embezzlement or corruption and
results in loss of faith and breaches the trust - Charge
pertaining to personal gain established - Degree of
corruption is immaterial - Whole act is reprehensible and      E
does not commend any lenience - Thus, the courts below
erred qy imposing a lesser punishment on the workman
whereas the only punishment, on establishment of the
charges accepted by the labour court, should have been
dismissal - Exercise of power u/s. 6(2-A) by Labour Court      F
was arbitrary and was not exercised in a judicial manner -
Award by the Labour Court as well as the order by the High
Court set aside and the order of dismissal imposed by the
Corporation restored.
                                                               G
    Allowing the appeal, the Court

    HELD: 1.1 An employee holding the post that
requires trust and confidence is.expected to behave with
                           423                                 H
424        SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2015] 10 S.C.R.

 A discipline, loyalty and also maintain the fiscal sanctity.
   He should not allow anything to creep in which would
   make him a person of questionable integrity. When the
   first three charges were treated to have been established
   by adducing cogent evidence, neither the Labour Court
 B nor the High Court should have been guided by the
   sense of mercy and direct reinstatement. The motive of
   the respondent from the act is inherent. When such kind
   of indiscipline causes financial loss to the Corporation,
   adequate punishment has to be imposed and such
 C misconduct does not stand on a lesser footing than
   embezzlement or corruption and more importantly
   results in loss of faith and breaches the trust. The
   fundamental duty and work must not be forgotten. A
   number of persons had been allowed to travel in the bus,
 0
   without paying fare as if the fare was paid, the same was
   pocketed. [Para 10) [433-E-H; 434-A]

           1.2 As the facts reveal, there could not have been
      any recovery. The non-recovery of the amount does not
 E    mean that there was no personal gain to the conductor
      or concealing of corruption for personal gains by
      lodging a report with the police regarding misplacing of
      waybill by the employee. The said charge has been
 F    proven in the domestic enquiry. The Labour Court has
      not really dislodged that finding. It has really proceeded
      in a mercurial manner and adverted to the issue of
      misappropriation. It has remained wholly oblivious to the
      facts that conductor had allowed 25 passengers to travel
 G    without ticket; that by virtue of the said act, the
      Corporation had sustained loss; that he had
      mischievously lodged an FIR at the police station
      regarding misplacing ofwaybill by him; that his conduct
      manifestly shows his involvement for personal gain, and
 H    that the eventual act was to conceal the corruption which
    U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORP. v. GOPAL               425 ·
                     SHUKLA

was rooted in his personal gain. The finding recorded A
by the Labour Court is absolutely perverse and.the High
Court repeated the reasons and concurred with the
conclusion. Thus, the irresistible conclusion is that the
charge pertaining to personal gain has been established.
Though there is concurrent finding of fact, but the B
approach being manifestly perverse, the same can be
interfered with in exercise of power u/Art. 136 of the
Constitution. [Para 12) [435-H; 436-A-F]

     1.3 The degree of corruption is immaterial. The whole C
act is reprehensible and such a situation does not even
remotely commend any lenience. [Para 15) [437-G; 438-
B]
    1.4 Both the Labour Court and the High Court erred
                                                           0
by imposing a lesser punishment on the respondent-
workman whereas the only punishment, on
establishment of the charges which have been accepted
by the labour court, should have been dismissal and not
a lesser one. The exercise of power under Section 6(2- E
A) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the Labour
Court is arbitrary and was not exercised in a judicial
manner. The award passed by the Labour Court as well
as the order passed by the High Court is set aside and
the order of dismissal imposed by the Corporation is F
restored. [Para 13, 14, 16) [436-G; 437-A, B; 438-B-C]

     UP State Road Transport Corporation vs. Suresh
     Chand Sharma 2010 (7) SCR 239: (2010) 6 SCC
     555; Scooter India Ltd. Lucknow v. Labour Court,
                                                             G
     Lucknow and Anr FLR 1988 (57): (1989) Supp. 1
     31; Alamelu v. State 2011 (2) SCR 147: (2Q11) 2
     SCC 385; Heinz India (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P. 2012
     (3) SCR 898: (2012) 5 SCC 443; Vishwanath
     Agrawal v. Sar/a Vishwanath Agrawal 2012 (7)            H
     SCR 607: (2012) 7 SCC 288; Shobha Suresh
426        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015) 10 S.C.R.


A          Jumani v. Appellate Tribunal 2001 (3) SCR 525:.
           (2001) 5 SCC 755; Niranjan Hemchandra
           Sashittal v. State of Maharashtra 2013 (4) SCR
           767: (2013) 4 sec 642 - referred to.

 B                      Case Law Reference

        2010 (7) SCR 239            referred to.        Para 9

        (1989) Supp. 1 31           referred to.        Para 10

 c      2011 (2) SCR 147            referred to.        Para 12

        2012 (3) SCR 898            referred to.        Para 12

        2012 (7) SCR 607            referred to.        Para 12

 D      2001 (3) SCR 525            referred to.        Para 14

        2013 (4) SCR 767            referred to.        Para 15

         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
 E    2038 of2012.

          From the Judgment and Order dated 29.08.2008 of the
      High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in CMWP No. 32298 of
      1997.

 F        Pradeep Misra for the Appellants.

          Vibhu Tiwari, Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Shrish Kumar Misra,
      Yash Pal Dhingra for the Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
 G
        DIPAK MISRA, J. 1. The present appeal compels us to
   wonder whether a Legal forum should allow itself to imagine
   facts and conceive of perverted situations to brush aside the
 H material brought on record and then for contrived reasons arrive
   at a conclusion that there was possibly no embezzlement or
     U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORP. v. GOPAL                  427
               SHUKLA [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

personal gain. The first respondent, a conductor in the service A
of the U. P. State Transport Corporation (for short, "the
Corporation"), despite the factum of carrying 25 passen·gers
without ticket being proved, is relieved and assuaged by
substitution of punishment of dismissal with stoppage of two
annual increments with cumulative effect taking aid of Section B
6(2-A) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity,
'the Act') by the Labour court in invocation of the doctrine of
reformation and principle of mercy, and the High Court, in
exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction has given the stamp of
approval to the award by treating it as just and defensible C
fundamentally resting its conclusion on the foundation that the
controversy hinged on the factual score. The reasoning, if we
allow ourselves to say, constrains us to ruminate whether the
Labour Court has been swayed away by the concept D
"forgiveness is the economy of the heart1" and dominantly
affected ~Y the conception "mercy among the virtues is like
the moon among the stars2", totally remaining oblivious to the
basic principle that when the workman shatters the "institutional
trust" and his act has the potentiality to corrode the faith and E
belief of the employer, does he deserve any leniency. It is not
the quantum per se but the breach of trust with reference to
duty and obligation of the employee that must be the edifice of
consideration for imposition of punishment.
                                                                  F
    2. The necessitous factual depiction is the first respondent
was serving as a Conductor under the appellant, Corporation.
On 24.10.1992, while he was the conductor of the bus No.
UAN 8711, he_ allowed 25 passengers to travel in the bus
without ticket. A report being received from the Assistant Traffic G
Inspector of the area, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated
against him and in the said proceeding, he was found guilty
and accordingly was visited with the punishment of dismissal.
' Hannah More
2 E.H. Chapin                                                     H
42(             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 10 S.C.R.


 A        On ari industrial dispute being raised, the competent authority
          of the State referred the industrial dispute to the concerned
          Labour Court under the provisions of the Act. The reference
          reads as follows:-

 E             "Whether termination of services of Shri Gopal Shukla,
     ·"        S/o late Shri Mathura Prasad Shukla, Conductor,
               Fatehpur Depot vide order dated 3.12.93 by his employer
               is legal and valid? If not, then to what benefits/
               compensation (Relief) the concerned workman is entitled
 C             to receive and with what other details?."

               3. The Labour Court on the basis of the materials brought
          on record took note of the report of the Assistant Traffic
          Inspector who had reported that 25 passengers without ticket
 o        were found in the bus and the conductor had recovered fare
          from them but had not issued the tickets to them, perused the
          findings in the domestic enquiry and came to hold that the
          allegation of personal gain and corruption had really not been
          established. After so holding, the Labour Court observed that
 E        it would be appropriate to give a chance to the workman for
          improvement in future and thereafter recorded the conclusion
          as follows:-

               "From the evidence available on record, it is proved that
 F             the Petitioner workman has committed illegality but fact
               of corruption is not proved. On the above basis setting
               aside the punishment of dismissal awarded by employers
               against the workman, it is directed that from the.date of
               termination of the services of the Petitioner workman till
 G             he is reinstated only half of the wages would be payable
               and on reinstatement his two annual increments will be
               stopped without any cumulative effect. According to
               aforesaid conditions, the petitioner workman is
               reinstated with continuity of service and other admissible
 H             benefits. The employers are directed to reinstate the
    U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORP. v. GOPAL                     429
              SHUKLA[DIPAK MISRA, J.]

     workman immediately after the award."                          A

     4. The Corporation assailed the said award in W.P.
No.32298of1997. The High Court, appreciating the reasons
ascribed in the award passed by the Labour Court, came to
hold that it had not been proved that the workman concerned B
had taken fare from 25 passengers and not issued tickets to
them and, therefore, there was no embezzlement. Being of
this view, the High Court concurred with the award relating to
reinstatement but as far as the grant of back wages is
concerned, it reduced the same to 25 percentage.               C

     5. We have heard Mr. Pradeep Mishra, learned counsel
forthe appellant and Mr. Vibhu Tiwari, learned counsel for the
State. None has appeared for the respondent no.1.
                                                                    D
    6. On a perusal of the award passed by the Labour Court
as well as the order passed by the High Court, we find that a
categorical conclusion has been arrived at on the basis of the
evidence on record that the respondent who was engaged as
a Conductor had allowed 25 passengers to travel in the bus          E
without ticket. It is obvious that the primary and core duty of a
condu£tor is to collect fare and render true and correct account.
This is the mainstay and centerpiece of his work and faith
reposed on him by the employer: The Labour Court as well as
the High Court has been guided by the perception that there         F
was no recovery of money and, therefore, there was no
corruption or embezzlement. But it fails to notice the nature of
duties and obligation of a conductor. Even the finding on no
corruption or embezzlement is ambiguous and contradictory.
                                                                    G
    7. At the outset, we may reproduce the charges framed
against the first respondent. They read as follows :

     "(1) On 24.10.1992 carrying 25 without ticket passengers
     in Bus No. UAN 8711 for personal gains.
                                                                    H
430        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 10 S.C.R.


A         (2) To cause financial loss to the department by involving
          in planned corruption, at the time of inspection by not
          returning the way bill after taking the same from the hands
          of inspectors and causing hindrance in inspection by
          instigating the passengers against them for personal
 B        gains.

          (3) As per the Rule· 62 of Departme"ntal Service
          Regulation committing misconduct as Misconduct No.1,
          3, 5, 10, 16, 21and22.
 c
          (4) At the time of inspection for the sake of concealing
          the grave corruption for personal gains, lodgedJalse
          report to the police regarding misplacing of waybi!I us~d
          by you."
 D
        8. The Labour Court as well as the High Court has found
   that 25 persons were carried without ticket. However, an
   opinion has been expressed that there was no personal gain.
   On a scrutiny of the award and the order passed by the High
 E Court, it can be stated with certitude that the Labour Curt as
   well as the High Court has accepted that the first three charges
   have been proved. We shall advert to the fourth charge and
   the soundness of the reasons ascribed thereof by the Labour
   Court at a later stage. However, it does not require Soloman's
 F wisdom to understand that by virtue of carrying 25 passengers
   without ticket, loss has indubitably been caused to the
   Corporation. The Labour Court, as is evident, has exercised
   its power under Section 6(2-A) of the Act. Section 6(2-A) reads
   as under:
 G
          "(2-A) An award in an industrial dispute relating to the
          discharge or dismissal of a workman may direct the
          setting aside of the discharge or dismissal and re-
          instatement of the workman on such terms and
 H        conditions, if any, as the authority making the award may
     U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORP. v. GOPAL                    431
               SHUKLA[DIPAK MISRA, J.]

      think fit, or granting such other relief to the workman,    A
      including the substitution of any lesser punishment for
      discharge or dismissal, as the circumstances of the case
      may require."

     9. When such a power is conferred on the Labour Court, it B
is obligatory on it ·to record satisfaction that the order of
dismissal was not justified and thereafter proceeded to award
a lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal. The thrust
of the matter is whether the present case was one where a
lenient attitude was required to be shown by the Labour Court C
and the High Court. In this context, Mr. Mishra has commended
us to a two Judge Bench decision in U.P. State Road
Transport Corporation vs. Suresh Chand Sharma3. In the
said case, a contention was raised that an embezzlement of
petty sum did not warrant the punishment of dismissal. D
Negativing the said submission, the Court opined:-

      "21. We do not find any force in the submissions made
      by Dr. J.N. Dubey, learned Senior counsel for the
      employee that for embezzlement of such a petty amount,       E
      punishment of dismissal could not be justified for the
      reason that it is not the amount embezzled by a
      delinquent employee but the mens rea to misappropriate
      the public money.
                                                                   F
      22. In Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh Vs. Krishnan
      Bihari & Ors. 4 , this Court held as under:-
      "In a case of such nature - indeed, in cases involving
      corruption - there cannot be any other punishment than G
      dismissal. 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
' (201 O) a sec 555
'AIR 1996 SC 1249                                                  H
432             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 10 S.C.R.


A              misappropriation that is relevant."

                 Similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Ruston
                 & Hornsby (I) Ltd. v.. T.B. Kadam 5 , U.P. State Road
               . Transport Corporation v.. Basudeo Chaudhary & Anr. 6 ,
 B             Janatha Bazar (South Kanara Central Cooperative
               Wholesale Stores Ltd.) & Ors. v.. Secretary, Sahakari
               Noukarara Sangha & Ors. 7 , Kamataka State Road
               Transport Corporation v.. B. S. Hul/ikatf1'8, and Regional
               Manager, R.S.R. T.C. v. Ghanshyam Sharma 9 •
c
               23. In NEKRTC v. H. Amaresh 10 , and UPSRTC v. Vinod
               Kumar11 , this Court held that the punishment should
               always be proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct.
               However, in a case of corruption/misappropriation, the
 o             only punishment is dismissal."

          10. In the instant case, as accepted by the Labour Court,
   the first respondent was carrying 25 passengers without tickets
   which has caused financial loss to the Corporation. That apart,
 E the workman had also violated the postulates under the Rule
   and committed misconduct. Two aspects are absolutely clear.
   It is established that 25 passengers were allowed to enter into
   the bus. There is no material on record that they had entered
   inside the bus by application of any kind of force. On the
 F contrary, the finding that has been recorded clearly establishes
   that they were travelling in the bus without ticket. The Labour
   Court, while recording such a finding, has been guided by the
      5
           AIR 1975 SC 2025
G • (1997) 11 sec 370
  1
    (2000) 7 sec 517
      8
          AIR 2001 SC 930
      • (2002) 1o sec 330
      10
           AIR 2006 SC 2730
H     11
           (200B) 1 sec 115
     U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORP. v. GOPAL                   433
               SHUKLA[DIPAK MISRA, J.]

observations of this Court that justice must be tampered with      A
mercy and the erring workman should be given an opportunity
to reform himself and to prove to be a loyal and disciplined
employee. The said observations have been reproduced from
Scooter India Ltd. Lucknow v. Labour Court, Lucknow
and Anr12• The said decision was rendered in the context of a      B
workman having an ideology and behaving in a different
manner which bordered on rudeness with the management.
There was no allegation of the present nature and, therefore,
we really fail to fathom how the said observations could have
been applied to a case of this magnitude when approximately C
half of the passengers travelled without ticket and the first
respondent was performing the duties of a Conductor. The loss
caused to the Corporation cannot be marginalized. In such a
situation the question of reformation and to make him
                                                                    0
disciplined or giving him another chance, in our considered
opinion, does not arise. The Conductor holds the post of trust
under the Corporation. It is extremely difficult on the part of the
checking authorities to check in a constant manner. An
employee holding the post that requires trust and confidence E
is expected to behave with discipline, loyalty and also maintain
the fiscal sanctity. He should not allow anything to creep in which
would make him a person of questionable integrity. When the
first three charges were treated to have been established by
adducing cogent evidence, neither the Labour Court nor the F
High Court should have been guided by the sense of mercy
and direct reinstatement. The motive of the respondent from
the act is inherent. When such kind of indiscipline causes
financial loss to the Corporation, adequate punishment has to
be imposed and in our view such misconduct does not stand G
on a lesser footing than embezzlement or corruption and more
importantly results in loss of faith and breaches the trust. We
must not forget the fundamental duty and work. A number of
12 FLR 1988 (57)   = (1989) Supp. 1 31                             H
434       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 10 S.C.R.


A persons had been allowed to travel in the bus, without paying
   fare as if the fare was paid, the same was pocketed. That
   apart, the violation of the Rules and the manner in which he
   has dealt with the Assistant Traffic Inspector should have been
  .seriously viewed.
B
        11. Presently, we shall deal with the issue whether the
   Labour Court is justified in its reasoning that the charge of
   personal gain has not been proved. The reasoning ascribed
   by the Labour Court, we must say, is absolutely perverse. It
C reads as follows:-

         "In chargesheet Exht. W/1 it has been stated that the
         petitioner was carrying 25 passengers for his personal
         gains and being involved in planned corruption he has
 D       caused financial loss to the corporation. On behalf of
         employer no such reliable evidence has been given from
         which it could be proved that the petitioner had recovered
         money from alleged without ticket passengers. It is not
         the contention of the Inspector that they had checked the
 E       bag available with the workman and cash more than the
         cash for which ticket have been issued, was available
         with the petitioner. Inspector Mohd. Khalil Khan in his
         statement has stated "after recording comments on the
         waybill, the same was given to the conductor for his
 F       signatures as a proof of incident but the conductor has
         folded and kept it with him and has not returned it to me.
         Besides this he had instigated the passengers against
         the conductor then they will make miserable for me to
         live in the area". In normal course, if the petitioner
G        workman would have taken fare of tickets from passenger
         and would not have issued tickets to them, then the
         passengers would have com plained to the Inspectors that
         petitioner workman inspite of taking money has not
         issued ticket to them. It does not appear believable that
 H
         without tickets pac;sengers have taken the side of
    U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORP. v. GOPAL                   435
              SHUKLA[DIPAK MISRA, J.]

     conductor and threatened the Inspector that if they will A
     make any complaint against the conductor, they will make
     it miserable for them to live in the area. lt_has come in
     evidence that the inspectors have not recovered 10 times
     of the fare from without ticket passengers or Rs.500/- as
     compounding fee. I understand that' by not recovering B
     compounding fee from the without ticket passengers, it
     will motivate the passengers to travel without ticket. If the
     passengers apprehend that their checking can be done
     and 10 times fare can be recovered from them, then
     certainly they will take ticket and if the conductor does C
     not issue ticket despite recovery of fare, then they will
     compel the conductor to issue tickets otherwise they
     have to pay a very large amount in case of checking.
     Thus the inspectors are also not less guilty for the
                                                                   0
     irregularity of carrying without ticket passengers. If this
     fact of the inspectors is correct that 25 without ticket·
     passengers have been found in petitioner's bus even
     then there is no proof of this fact that the petitioner
     workman had recovered the fare from them and wanted E
     to misappropriate the same. In the circumstances of the
     case, I understand that the punishment of dismissal
     awarded to the petitioner is somewhat severe."

     12. On a mere glance at the said reasons, it is quite vivid F
the reasons are really imaginary and reveal some kind of
unacceptable theoretical perceptions by the Labour Court. The
conduct of the conductor would clearly showthatthe factum of
personal gain was established. The reason given that the
passengers would have complained and they would not have G
taken the side of the conductor and would have made a
complaint against the conductor are not based on any
evidence, but are eloquently expressed by innate creativity of
the Labour Court. As the factual matrix reveals, there could not
have been any recovery. The non-recovery of the amount does H
436             SUPREME COURT REPORTS           [2015) 10 S.C.R.


A not mean that there was no personal gain to the conductor or
  concealing of corruption for personal gains by lodging a report
  with the poli_ce regarding misplacing of waybill by the employee.
  Needless to emphasise the said charge has been proven in
  the domestic enquiry. The Labour Court has not really
B dislodged that finding. It has really proceeded in a mercurial
  manner and adverted to the issue of misappropriation. It has
  remained wholly oblivious to the facts that condu'ctor had
  allowed 25 passengers to travel wtthout ticket; that by virtue of
  the said act, the Corporation had sustained loss; that he had
C mischievously lodged an FIR at the police station regarding
  misplacing of waybill by him; that his conduct manifestly shows
  his involvement for personal gain, and that the eventual act
  was to conceal the corruption which was rooted in his personal
  gain. The finding recorded by the Labour Court on this score
0
  is absolutely perverse and the High Court has repeated the
  reasons and concurred with the conclusion. Thus, the
  irresistible conclusion has to be that the charge pertaining to
  personal gain has been proved. We may clearly state that the
E contrary conclusion would tantamount to ignoring the obvious
  and, in a way, treating the pinchbeck to be real. Though there
  is concurrent finding of fact, but the approach being manifestly
  perverse, the same can be interfered with in exercise of power
  under Article 136 of the Constitution. It has been so held in
F Alame/u v. State13 , Heinz India (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P. 14
  and Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sar/a Vishwanath Agrawa/1 5 .

      13. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the irresistible
  conc.lusion is that both the Labour Court and the High Court
G have fallen in error by imposing a lesser punishment on the
  respondent-workman whereas the only punishment, on

      " (2011 > 2 sec 385
      1
       •   (2012) 5 sec 443
 H    15
           (2012) 7 sec 288
        U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORP. v. GOPAL                    437
                  SHUKLA[DIPAK MISRA, J.]

establishment of the charges which have been accepted by A
the labour court, should have been dismissal and not a lesser
one.
     14. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are
impelled to state that the exercise of power under Section 6(2-
                                                                        8
A) of the Act by the Labour Court is absolutely arbitrary and it
can be said without any shadow of doubt that it has not been
exercised in a judicial manner. Additionally, when we have
further held that the charge pertaining to personal gain has
been established, the said view gets more support. It is so,            c
as has been observed in Shobha Suresh Jumani v.
Appellate Tribuna/1 6 that there is a cancerous growth of
corruption which has affected the moral standards of people
and all forms of governmental administration.
                                                                        D
   15. In Niranjan Hemchandra Sashitta/ v. State of
Maharashtra 17 , it has been observed that-

         "... corruption mothers disorder, destr.oys societal will to
         progress, accelerates undeserved ambitions, kills the
         conscience, jettisons the glory of the institutions,           E
         paralyses the economic health of a country, corrodes the
         sense of civility and mars the marrows of governance. It
         is worth noting that immoral acquisition of wealth destroys
         the energy of the people believing in honesty, and history     F
         records with agony how they have suffered. The only
         redeeming fact is that collective sensibility respects such
         suffering as it is in consonance with the constitutional
         morality."

     In the said case, it has also been observed that the degree        G
of corruption is immaterial. In the case at hand, as we perceive,
the delinquent employee has harboured the notion that when
•• (2001 l 5 sec 755
11
     (2013) 4 sec 642                                                   H
438          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2015] 10 S.C.R.


A the cancerous growth has affected the system, he can further
  allow it to grow by covering it like an octopus, with its tentacles
  disallowing any kind of surgical operation or treatment so that
  the lesion continues. The whole act is reprehensible and such
  a situation does not even remotely commend any lenience.
B
       16. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the award
  passed by the Labour Court as well as the order passed by
  the High Court is set aside and the order of dismissal imposed
  by the Corporation is restored. There shall be no order as to
C costs.

      Nidhi Jain                                       Appeal allowed.