BHAGAWATI PRASAD OJHA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Dr. H.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri B.P. Singh Kachhawah, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1 and Sri R.P. Ram, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Briefly stated the fact of the present case are that the petitioner, was Conductor of Bus of Respondent No. 3, bearing registration No. U.P. 81/9078, which was intercepted on 16.10.2001 at about 13:45 hours at Samramai by the inspecting team led by Sri S.K. Sharma, Assistant Regional Manager, Etah. The Inspecting Team inspected the aforesaid bus and found that 73 persons, were travelling while tickets were issued to only 26 passengers. The petitioner alongwith his associates did not allow the inspecting team to check the tickets passenger-wise and misbehaved with the Inspecting Team and compelled them to score out the figure 73 and instead to write the figure as 26. They threatened the inspecting team. When the inspecting team tried to return by their staff car No. U.T.L./3577, then the petitioner with others intercepted the staff car and took out the members of the inspecting team namely Sri B.D. Sonkar, and Sri Rajendra Singh, both Assistant Traffic Inspectors and compelled them to write that 47 persons/passengers are staff members. They also used vulgar words and threatened to kill them. They did not allow physical verification. A report of the aforesaid incident was sent by the Assistant Regional Manager? Sri S.K. Sharma on 16.10.2001 itself. On the basis of these allegations contained in the report sent by the aforesaid Assistant Regional Manager, Etah Sri S.K. Sharma, the petitioner was suspended vide office order/letter No. 6547 dated 17.10.2001 and was attached with the Naraura Depot. A charge-sheet vide letter No. 6803 dated 30.10.2001 was issued to the petitioner. The charges were two fold namely, that 47 passengers were found without tickets and secondly that the petitioner alongwith his associates and unsocial elements misbehaved and used vulgar words, compelled the inspecting team to score out the noting of 47 persons without tickets and also threatened to kill the members of the inspecting team. The petitioner did not submit the reply against the charges levelled in the charge-sheet. In the circumstances a reminder letter No. 7283 dated 13.11.2006 was issued to him granting three days' further time to submit the reply. The charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner on 8.11.2001. The petitioner submitted his reply on 8.1.2002. He took the stand that 47 persons found without tickets in the Bus, were members of the staff. He filed affidavits of twelve persons, in which it is stated that 47 persons were not passenger without tickets, but they were staff members. The Reporting Officer i.e. Assistant Regional Manager, Etah, Sri S.K. Sharma and Traffic Superintendent - Sri Chakkar, appeared during the inquiry proceedings and confirmed the report. The Enquiry Officer considered all the affidavits and came to the conclusion that even the members of the staff are not authorized to travel in a bus of the corporation on the basis of identity card. The facility of free travelling is available only on the basis of passes. He recorded the findings of fact that these 47 persons/passenger were travelling illegally without obtaining their tickets for which the petitioner is fully responsible. The Enquiry Officer submitted the report dated 3.1.2005, thereafter a show-cause notice dated 02nd May, 2005 was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 01st of June, 2005. The Competent Authority afforded opportunity to the petitioner and after considering all the evidence on record, recorded a finding of fact that there is no error in the enquiry report, in which all the charges levelled against the petitioner were found proved. He observed that petitioner has not adduced any evidence. He came to the conclusion that no case is made out by the petitioner for relaxation in punishment proposed in the show-cause notice, vide order dated 13.11.2006 passed by the competent authority, the petitioner was awarded punishment of dismissal from service and all his retiral benefits were forfeited.

(2.) Aggrieved with this order the petitioner preferred a departmental appeal, which was rejected by an order dated 26th April, 2007. Thereafter the petitioner filed a representation, which was also rejected by an order dated 22nd December, 2008. Aggrieved with these three orders namely, impugned order dated 13.11.2006, appellant order dated 26th April, 2007 and the revisional order dated 22nd December, 2008, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) Dr. H.N. Tripathi, submits that impugned orders are wholly arbitrary and illegal and thus not sustainable, since the Enquiry Officer has not applied his mind and not recommended any penalty as required under Rule 64(4) of the State Road Transport Corporation Employees Service Regulation, 1981. The Enquiry Officer has not recorded any finding that the negligence committed by the petitioner in not issuing the tickets to all the 47 passengers, was for his personal gain and as such major penalty for dismissal from service and for forfeiture of his retiral benefits is illegal.