POORAN SINGH RAHI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 6.3.1986 (Annexure - 7) removing the petitioner from service. His case is stated hereunder.

(2.) He was appointed as a Conductor under the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation by the Assistant Regional Manager, U.P.State Road Transport Corporation, Dehradun on 24.11.1978 and was posted at the rural depot under the administrative control and jurisdiction of Dehradun region. In March 1983 he was transferred and posted at the hill depot, Dehradun. In June 1984 respondent No. 5 was working as the Assistant Regional Manager Incharge of the hill depot and the petitioner was serving under him. On 7.6.1984 the petitioner was detailed for duty on Dehradun - Rishikesh - Narendra Nagar route in the bus bearing registration No. UTL 3394. After the scheduled halt at Rishikesh around 8 p.m. the bus left for Narendra Nagar and several passengers boarded the bus. According to the petitioner most of the passengers having boarded the bus at the crowed market place where the bus could not be kept stationary and as he did not have sufficient coins to facilitate quick transaction and also as the lighting inside the bus was defective, he had handed over tickets to 22 passengers who had boarded the bus at Rishikesh on promise that those passengers would themselves collectively pay him the total fare 3.35 per passenger. However, before he could collect the fare from the passengers, respondent No. 5 and Traffic Inspector Varma, stopped and checked the bus. He handed over way - bill No. 254038 and the tickets for the purpose of checking. It is alleged that as the checking officials falsely accused the petitioner for having taken passengers without tickets with a motive for personal gain, the passengers resented and supported the petitioner. At that lime the local Sub - Divisional Magistrate arrived at the spot and the petitioner was forced by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, respondent No. 5 and the Traffic Inspector to go the Narendra Nagar Police Station along with them. The petitioner was further forced under threat and duress to make a confessional statement to the effect that he was carrying 34 passengers in the bus without tickets though he had collected the fares from them and that he was ready to deposit ten times the total amount for fare as penalty in addition to the actual fare. Thereafter respondent No. 5 and Traffic Inspector Varma, fraudulently lodged F.I.R. at Narendra Nagar Police Station against the petitioner. A sum of Rs. 229.60 was recovered and seized from him at the police station. He offered a bearer cheque procured by him from one of his local acquaintances and promised to pay the total amount in cash by 9 a.m. the next day. Early in the morning on 8.6.1984 he collected Rs. 1252.90 (Rs. 1139.00) from his relatives and deposited the amount. It is also alleged that the concerned way - bill was lorn by respondent No. 5 and Traffic Inspector Varma. Thereafter, proceedings were drawn up against the petitioner by respondent No. 5, who also placed him under suspension vide order dated 8.6.1984 (Annexure - 1). The charge - sheet dated 25.6.1984 was served on the petitioner and he was also given photo - state copies of the connected documents. He submitted a written statement on 19.8.1984 (Annexure - 3). The respondent No. 5 then appointed the Assistant Regional Manager, U.P., State Road Transport Corporation, Saharanpur as the enquiry officer. The enquiry report was duly submitted to respondent No. 5 as per intimation conveyed to him on 19.4.1985. In the meanwhile the petitioner was transferred and posted at the rural depot undgrjhe administrative control and jurisdiction of respondent No. 5 under orders of the Regional Manager, Dehradun region, respondent No. 3. By notice dated 31.8.1985, respondent No. 4 required the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service and along with the notice, two enquiry reports, one by the Assistant Regional Manager, Saharanpur and the other by respondent No. 4 himself, were supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner filed objections against the reports. The objections were rejected by respondent No. 4, vide Annexure 5. It is alleged that copies of the evidence of witnesses adduced in the enquiry were not given to the petitioner and that he was not allowed to inspect the records also. The petitioner made representations to the higher authorities. However, by order dated 6.3.1986 passed by respondent No. 5, the petitioner was removed from service. It is alleged that the enquiry against the petitioner suffered from procedural irregularities and that the respondents were prejudiced and biased against the petitioner. The petitioner has accordingly prayed that the order dated 6.3.1986 passed against him should be quashed.

(3.) In the counter filed by respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 it is stated that at the time when the bus was checked by respondent No. 5 and Traffic Inspector Varma, the petitioner misbehaved with the checking staff and tore off the concerned way - bill from the hands of the Traffic Inspector and at that time the Sub - Divisional Magistrate arrived at the spot and the petitioner was taken to the Police Station. The allegations of threat, duress, etc. are denied. At the Police Station the Traffic Inspector lodged the FIR and the petitioner himself admitted having carried 34 passengers in the bus without tickets. He deposited the fare collected by him along with the compounding fee. The presence of the Sub - Divisional Magistrate at the spot is sought to he justified on the ground that the petitioner had obstructed the checking officers and had created disturbance at the spot where the bus was being checked and as such the Sub - Divisional Magistrate took the petitioner and the Traffic Inspector to the Police Station. It is again denied that the statement of the petitioner was taken under threat or duress. A sum of Rs. 229/ - was recovered from the bag of the petitioner which he had deposited. It is stated that under notification dated 28.12.1963, the officials of the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation have been empowered to check their own buses and take action under Sec. 112 - A of the Motor Vehicles Act, vide Annexure B1. It is also stated that as respondent No. 5 was the appointing authorities of the petitioner, he was competent to issue the charge - sheet. The allegations of procedural irregularities, bias and prejudice are denied. It is pointed out that the Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Dehradun, had issued general instruction to all the officers of Dehradun region to conduct enquiries. There necessary and the Assistant Regional Manager, Saharanpur, had been appointed as the enquiry officer to conduct enquires in respect of disciplinary cases pertaining to hill depots under the administrative jurisdiction of the Assistant Regional Manager, Hill, Dehradun. It is explained that in the light of the aforesaid general instructions the petitioner's case was sent to the Assistant Regional Manager, Saharanpur for enquiry. According to the respondents, the petitioner was given full opportunity to defend himself and opportunity was also given to him to cross - examine respondent No. 5 and Traffic Inspector Varma. The Assistant Regional Manager, Saharanpur, who had held the enquiry was of the view that though the petitioner was guilty of carrying 34 passengers without tickets for personal gain, as the case had been compounded, he was not liable to be further punished in the departmental proceedings. However, respondent No. 4 who had to take the final decision in the matter did not agree with the aforesaid view of the enquiry officer and his reasons for disagreement had been duly communicated to the petitioner. It is asserted that the order removing the petitioner from service was passed by respondent No. 4 on due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and as such no interference is called for.