KULDEEP SINGH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved with the award of Labour Court, dated 13.08.1997, Annexure P-7, charge-sheet dated 08.11.1991, Annexure P-1, inquiry report dated 21.05.1992, Annexure P-3, show cause notice dated 03.06.1992, Annexure P-4, termination order dated 20.08.1992, Annexure P-5 and the appellate order, Annexure P-6, the petitioner seeks quashing of the same in this Civil Writ Petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The averments of the petitioner in the instant Civil Writ Petition are that he was appointed as a Conductor in the Punjab Roadways by the Divisional Manager, Punjab Roadways, Chandigarh vide order dated 24.05.1983. His services are governed by the Rules called the Punjab Roadways (Operational) State Service Class III Rules, 1977. On 27.09.1991, he was on duty in bus bearing No. 8307 which was bound from Nangal to Sirsa. On reaching Ropar, he had severe stomache. As a result thereof, the bus was parked at Ropar and the passengers were adjusted in some other bus. He took medicine from Laungia Clinic in Guru Nanak Dev Market. After taking medicine, he again started with Shri Harnek Singh, driver of the bus. On reaching Sardoolgarh at about 6 PM, his condition worsened and he laid on the rear seat of the bus. He issued tickets to the passengers. However, some passengers may have lost his notice.

(3.) His further averments are that the bus was checked by Sarvshri Tarsem Singh and Gurbax Singh, Inspectors of Nangal Depot at Sirsa. He was in an unconscious position when the Inspectors asked for the way bill and the tickets. He handed over the tickets and the way bill. The Inspecting Staff did not take his signatures on the back of the tickets nor did his cash was checked by the Inspecting Staff. On the report of the inspecting Staff, He was placed under suspension on 01.10.1991. Charge-sheet was issued to him for not issuing tickets to 21 passengers and for mis-appropriation on the ground that he had collected Rs. 5/- each from 21 passengers but did not issue tickets to them. After finding his reply to be unsatisfactory, a regular inquiry was conducted against him. The Inquiry Officer held that the charges were proved against him. The General Manager agreed with the report of the Inquiry Officer and dismissed him from service vide order dated 20.08.1992. He filed an appeal before the Divisional Manager who dismissed the same vide order dated 05.04.1994.