BACHAU RAM Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed in the year 1959 as a Bus Conductor on temporary basis with the U. P. Government Roadways (now U. P. State Road Transport Corporation). On 15,4.1987, while the petitioner was taking the Bus No. 415 as its Conductor, in a surprise check by the Traffic Inspector it was found that 10 passengers were travelling without tickets. The Traffic Inspector realized the fare and penalty from such passengers. Thereafter again on 25.4.198,7 when the petitioner was deputed as Bus Conductor on another Bus on Varanasi-Jamania route, the checking authorities found that 22 passengers were travelling without tickets. Thereafter on 30.4.1987, the Regional Manager of the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation issued a charge-sheet to the petitioner to which a reply was submitted on 7.5.1987. The enquiry report was submitted on 14.9.1987. On 16.9.1987, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to which a reply was filed on 24.10.1987. The Regional Manager, after considering the enquiry report as well as the reply to the show cause notice submitted by the petitioner, passed an order dated 4.12.1987, for removal of the petitioner from service on the ground of corruption and misconduct having been committed by him. The petitioner filed an appeal against the aforesaid order which was also dismissed by the Zonal Manager, U. P. State Road Transport Corporation vide its order dated 15.3.1988. Although no such second appeal was provided under the relevant Act and the Rules, the petitioner thereafter filed a representation against the aforesaid orders dated 4.12.1987 and 15.3.1988 to the Minister of Transport, Government of U. P. By order dated 17.6.1992, passed by the General Manager of the U, P. State Road Transport Corporation, the said representation was rejected as not maintainable. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dated 4.12.1987, 15.3.1988 and 17.6.1992 passed by the respondent-authorities, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(2.) I have heard Sri V. K. Ral, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Sri Sameer Sharma. learned counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the record.

(3.) The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that neither was the enquiry conducted properly nor was the reply of the petitioner to the show cause notice considered by the Regional Manager, before passing of the impugned order dated 4.12.1987. It has been contended that the explanation of the petitioner was a valid one which ought to have been accepted, as after the passengers boarded the bus, on being asked, they refused to pay the fare. It has also been submitted that with regard to the second incident on 25.4.1987, when 22 passengers had been found to be travelling without tickets, the disciplinary authority himself had found the same to be doubtful and exonerated the petitioner of the said charges. It has thus been urged that the petitioner ought to have been given similar concession with regard to the first incident also which took place on 15.4.1987. In the alternative, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the charges against the petitioner were not so grave as to call for penalty of removal from service, and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, a lenient view ought to have been taken in the matter and a lesser punishment should have been imposed.