GULAB SINGH Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner commenced his career's journey as a Conductor with the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation('hereinafter referred to as "Corporation"'). He was promoted to the post of a Booking Clerk. He had a smooth ride for the most part of his career until the fag end of it. The petitioner served the Corporation from 01.12.1981 to 31.08.2014. While in service, the petitioner was granted the first selection grade with effect from 01.12.1991, on completion of 10 years continuous satisfactory service. His pay-scale was revised accordingly. The petitioner was granted a second selection grade with effect from 01.12.2001, on completion of 20 years continuous satisfactory service, with a corresponding revision of his pay. Again on 19.02.2013, by means of an order of that date, the petitioner was granted benefit of the third Assured Career Progression('for short "ACP"'). He was granted grade-pay of Rs. 4200/- with effect from 01.12.2001. Upon grant of this ACP, the petitioner's emoluments were revised and he was also paid arrears.

(2.) Trouble for the petitioner began on 14.03.2014, when he was issued with a charge sheet. It appears that at the relevant time, the petitioner was deputed to do the work of Issue Clerk in the Checking Department at the Aligarh Establishment of the Corporation. It was his duty to deposit receipts of the Corporation in the Corporation Treasury on a single queue bus service received on a daily basis. The petitioner, however, was charged with depositing the receipts of the Corporation accumulated over a number of days, instead of doing it daily. This was prima facie found to be a violation of the rules of the Corporation, besides an act of negligence. The petitioner was charged, as already said, on 14.03.2014, with violation of Rule 61 and 62 of the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Other Than Officers) Service Regulations, 1981('for short "Regulations of 1981"').

(3.) The petitioner submitted a reply to the charge sheet, denying all the charges against him. Pending disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner retired, on attaining the age of superannuation, on 31.08.2014. The departmental inquiry that had been initiated against the petitioner went ahead and an inquiry report was submitted on 13.11.2014, according to which, the petitioner was found negligent in the performance of his duties. It was one of the petitioner's defences that he did not make the delay in deposit of receipts, received bag-wise, of his own. It was done that way on account of directions in this regard, received from the then Assistant Regional Manager, on 31.12.2011 and 18.01.2012. The said Officer of the Corporation had instructed that when the load factor was low, bag-wise deposit be not made and the conductor concerned be required to speak to him. It was further directed that bag-wise deposit of receipts be made only in the event the load factor was 75%. It was explained that the delay in depositing the receipts was on account of these instructions and there was no culpability on the petitioner's part.