NARVADESHWAR RAI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BINOD Kumar Roy, J. The petitioner prays to quash an order dated 21-1-1982 passed by the Assistant Regional Manager, U. P. State Road Transport Corporation, Deoria, Respondent No. 3 (as contained in Annexure-1) and the order dated 26-8-1988 passed by the Regional Manager, U. P. State Road Transport Corporation, Gorakhpur, Respon dent No. 2, (as contained in Annexure-8) by grant of writ of certiorari. He also prays to command the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 aforementioned to treat him in service in continuity.

(2.) A perusal of Annexure-1 shows that vide office order, dated 21-1-1982 the petitioner, then booking clerk, Deoria Depot, was suspended with immediate effect and that he was held to be entitled to have half of his salary besides dearness allowances as per the rules. Perusal of Annexure-8 shows that vide office order 26-8-1988 his services were terminated with immediate effect after finding him guilt of the charges levelled against him vide charge sheet dated 5-8-1983 (as contained in Annexure-5 ).

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended as follows : (i) As no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents and the statements made by the petitioner stand supported by the documents appended to the writ petition and its supplementary coupled with the fact that neither in the enquiry report nor in the final order terminating the services of the petitioner any rule or standing order has been shown fastening the liability with the petitioner in regard to his alleged mis conduct, the impugned order terminating his service is liable to be quashed on this ground alone, (ii) Even assuming that this Court does not accept the submission made aforementioned, in view of the fact that the peti tioner, who continued in service pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court vide order dated 13-8-1991 staying operation of the impugned order and the petitioner also superannuated in the meantime coupled with the further fact that the three conductors, who were responsible for non- deposit of the amount, had deposited the amount in question thereupon a minor punishment was inflicted on them, justice requires remission of the matter for taking a lenient view and for imposing minor punishment to save the impugned order from the vice of discrimination prohibited under Article 16 read with Article 14 of the Constitution of India,