BANKEY BIHARI CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This special appeal has arisen from a judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 9 December 2014 dismissing a writ petition filed by the appellant.

(2.) The appellant was appointed as a Bus Conductor in the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation(Corporation) on 20 March 1978. His services are governed by the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Other than Officers) Service Regulations, 1981(Regulations). Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellant by the issuance of a charge sheet on 6 July 2002. The appellant submitted a reply to the charge sheet. His reply was not found satisfactory and a notice to show cause was issued to him on 15 December 2005, proposing to punish him for the loss stated to have been incurred by the Corporation in the amount of Rs 2,99,848/-. After considering the reply of the appellant and the report of the Inquiry Officer, the competent authority found the appellant to be negligent in the performance of his duties, thereby causing a financial loss in the amount of Rs 219,846/- and an order was passed on 27 June 2006 for the recovery of the aforesaid amount by deducting Rs 500/- per month from his salary until his retirement. The appellant filed a writ petition which was dismissed on 24 July 2006 with liberty to file an appeal. According to the respondents, the appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority on 9 April 2009. On the other hand, according to the appellant, the order of the appellate authority was never served on him. The appellant moved the prescribed authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The Commissioner, by an order dated 22 June 2009 allowed the application and set aside the deduction of Rs 500/- with a direction, consequently, to refund an amount of Rs 22,000/- to the appellant. That amount was admittedly refunded. The Corporation filed an appeal which was rejected by the appellate authority on 27 October 2010. A writ petition was filed by the Corporation in which, on 8 April 2011, the operation of the orders dated 22 June 2009 and 27 October 2010 was stayed. The stay order dated 8 April 2011 is stated to have been extended on 4 July 2011.

(3.) The cause of action for the appellant for filing the writ petition was the initiation of recovery proceedings by the Corporation represented in these proceedings by the second and third respondents. On 1 September 2014, an order was passed by the Regional Manager of the Corporation sanctioning the total gratuity amount of Rs 2,50,945/- and adjusting it towards the balance amount of Rs 2,89,250/- which was to be recovered. The entire amount of gratuity has thus been adjusted towards the recovery. Challenging the recovery action, the appellant moved writ proceedings which have been dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned order dated 9 December 2014. What has weighed with the learned Single Judge is that the appellant did not challenge the order of punishment that was originally passed or the order passed in the departmental appeal and has now challenged only a consequential decision to recover the amount from the gratuity due and payable.