GIRJA SHANKAR SINGH Vs. GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was a Bus Driver in the Service of the U.P.S.R.T. Corporation. He was given a charge-sheet dated 15-7-1988 Annexure-1 to the writ petition) On the basis of the charge-sheet an enquiry was held against him and ultimately his services were terminated by the order dated 21-2-1990 Annaxure-6 to the writ petition). He filed an appeal which was rejected by the order dated 20-11-1991 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition). Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition against the said order. After heaving counsel for the petitioner and after going through the entire record, I am of the opinion that the finding that the petitioner was guilty in respect of the charges levelled against him causes for no interference. However, I am of the opinion that the punishment of termination is disproportionate to the offence Committed by the petitioner. A perusal of the charge-sheet (Annexure-l) shows that the allegation against the petitioner was that he was late on duty and when he was told to operate the bus he refused to do so and used insulting language to the Assistant Regional Manager. The finding of guilt in respect of these charges is a finding of fact based on the evidence on record and I cannot interfere. With these findings under Art. 226 of the Constitution. However, it is now settled law that the punishment shall be proportionate to the offence. In my opinion the misconduct committed by the petitioner, though no doubt, proved, was not so grave as to bent termination of his service. As held by the Honourable Supreme Court the punishment must be commensurate to the offence vide Sardar Singh Vs. Union, AIR 1992 SC 417. The petitioner was appointed in 1962 and he has been continuing in service since then and there is no allegation that he has earlier committed misconduct. Hence as held in Laxmi Shankar Pandey Vs. Union, AIR 1991 (SC) 1070, this is a mitigating circumstance in favour of the petitioner. In such cases where the High Court is of the opinion that the punishment is disproportionate to the offence, the High Court can itself reduce the punishment instead of remanding the matter. Hence I reduce the punishment of the petitioner and set aside the impugned termination order dated 21-2-1990 and direct that the Regional Manager, LiP SRTC, Varanasi shall give a lesser punishment (lesser than termination) within 2 month of production of this order before him. Petitioner will not be given a hearing before passing such a lesser punishment.

(2.) With these punishment the petitioner will be instituted in service within one month of production of certified copy of this Judgment before 1 Appointment - Death in harness - High Court directed to give suitable appointment according to qualification of petitioners within one month from the date of production of certified copy of the order of the High Court. Petition partly allowed.