GOVARDHAN YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 24.08.2007 passed by Assistant Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C., Fatehpur Depot., whereby a minor penalty for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,78,136/- has been imposed on the petitioner in purported exercise of power under Regulation 65 of the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Employees (other than Officers ) Regulation, 1981 and the order dated 30.12.2008 passed by Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C., Kanpur Region, Kanpur dismissing the appeal.

(2.) The petitioner is working as conductor with the respondent Corporation. While he was posted at Fatehpur Depot, Kanpur Region, Kanpur, he was issued Bag No.94 Abstract 30883996 on Allahabad-Agra Route, on 25.05.2007. After reaching Agra Fort Bus Station at about 1 A.M(25/26 night), the petitioner was extremely tired. He took food, at about 1.30 in the night. It was extremely hot. He along with the driver of the bus, Shri Arun Kumar, went to sleep on the bus top, keeping the bag containing money and unused tickets underneath his head, in order to ensure it's safety. When he got up in the morning, he found the bag missing and immediately informed the police by making a report in writing at Police Station Raqabganj, Agra. The application given to S.H.O., Raqabganj, Agra dt. 26.05.07 has been brought on record as Annexure-1 to the writ petition in which it is stated that the bag containing Rs.4328/- in cash, being the sale value of the tickets, unused tickets and waybills were stolen by some unknown persons and the Police may register the report and take necessary action. The incident was duly reported in the newspaper Amar Ujala. On coming back to Fatehpur, he immediately informed the Senior Station In-charge, Fatepur Depot about the said incident by making an application dated 27.05.2005 annexing therewith the copy of the First Information Report and the news publication. In pursuance thereof, the Senior Station In-charge, Fatehpur Depot by letter dated 30.5.2007 made a report to respondent no.3 regarding the incident. A notice dated 22.06.2007 was served by respondent no.3 on the petitioner seeking his explanation why the value of unused tickets and waybill amounting Rs.1,78,136/- be not recovered from him. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 07.08.2007 categorically stating that he was not negligent, rather the incident took place on account of circumstances beyond his control. He furnished detailed explanation, regarding the circumstances in which bag was kept underneath the head. He cited the case of conductor Awadhesh Awasthi, who also became victim of similar theft, but the department only realised price of paper and printing charges from him after holding that at bus stations, in absence of any facility to the conductors for keeping their bags in safe custody, such incidents often take place. The order of the appellate authority passed in his case was enclosed with the explanation. He further stated that unless there is proof of misuse of stolen tickets, their value should not be recovered from him. The petitioner further stated that he has been in service of the Corporation since 1980 and in the past there has never been any charge of dereliction of duty. He accordingly, prayed for the matter being considered sympathetically.

(3.) The explanation submitted by the petitioner did not find favour with respondent no.3 and he passed an order dated 24.8.2007 directing recovery of Rs.1,78,136/- from the petitioner as cost of unused tickets and waybills. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal, where he again cited the case of Sri Awadhesh Awasthi, conductor from whom the appellate authority only directed for realization of the cost of paper and printing. The petitioner further pleaded that even after the petitioner had duly intimated the authorities about the incident, they have not held any inquiry nor have verified any fact but have straightaway proceeded to pass the order for recovery. However, the appellate authority namely, Regional Manager, Kanpur vide order dated 30.12.2008 rejected the appeal after holding that a sum of Rs.23,636/- has already been deducted and the remaining amount be deducted forthwith. Certain other modifications were made which relates to the correction of error in calculation of the value of unused tickets and waybills. Aggrieved by the said orders, the present writ petition has been filed.