Allahabad High Court
U.P. State Road Transport ... vs Kaushal Kishore Chaturvedi on 12 October, 2017
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal, Ajit Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 34
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 818 of 2009
Appellant :- U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Thru'Its Chairman &Ors
Respondent :- Kaushal Kishore Chaturvedi
Counsel for Appellant :- Nripendra Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- Sushil Chandra Srivastava
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
1. Sri Nripendra Mishra, learned counsel for appellants is present. None has appeared for respondents though called in revise. Hence we proceed to decide the matter, after hearing counsel for appellants only.
2. This intra-Court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1952") has arisen from judgment and order dated 19.01.2009 passed in writ petition no. 41645 of 2005.
3. Facts of present case are that petitioner assailed order of termination dated 13.02.2004 on the ground that though as many as four employees including petitioners were allegedly involved but it is petitioner who has been awarded with maximum punishment whereas other three employees have been awarded lesser punishment.
4. Learned Single Judge held that misconduct on the part of petitioner and other employees was such that no lenient view could have been taken against any one of them and other three employees who were awarded lesser punishment also deserved same treatment as by petitioner. Then learned Single Judge is of the view that petitioner did not deserve any mercy. However, in view of lesser punishment imposed upon three employees, petitioner was directed to be compensated by damages assessed as Rs.40,000/-
5. The case of present appellant is that respondent-petitioner was wrongly awarded damages of Rs.40,000/- inspite of fact that Court recorded finding that considering gravity of charge levelled against delinquent employee namely respondent-petitioner, he did not deserve any lenient view in the matter. The argument advanced is that learned Single Judge having recorded a categorical finding that charge levelled against petitioner and punishment awarded was just and proper and warrant no interference, was not justified in further allowing compensation to petitioner by awarding a sum of Rs.40,000/- as damages and that too only because other similarly placed employees were awarded lesser punishment. On the quantum of punishment, Court could have considered and then should have remitted matter for reconsideration for lesser punishment, but in no case when Court has recorded that punishment awarded to respondent-petitioner was just and proper, there was any justification to award damages to compensate petitioner.
6. We have considered argument advanced by learned Standing Counsel and find merit in it. We find that there was no occasion to award damages in such cases where Court in its ultimate finding recorded that maximum punishment awarded was just and proper. Law of damages favours those cases where a person is penalized for no fault on his part. It is not the case of such kind. Therefore, we are unable to agree with order and direction of learned Single Judge awarding damages to respondent-petitioner.
7. In view of above, we allow this special appeal to the extent that judgment and order awards damages to petitioner is set aside and order of learned Single Judge is modified accordingly.
Order Date :- 12.10.2017/S. Thakur
