BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PATNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the State. Although the respondent No. 2 workman has entered his appearance by filing Vakalatnama, no one appears to press his case.

(2.) The brief facts of this case are that the respondent No. 2 Hriday Narayan Singh was posted as a Conductor at the Bhagalpur depot of the petitioner-Bihar State Road Transport Corporation. On 20.1.1989 while he was on duty as a Conductor in Bus bearing registration No. BHS-4690 Bhagalpur-Bokaro 1st Service, the bus was checked at Dumka-Bhagalpur border at the checking post of the petitioner-Corporation. It was detected on checking that there were ten unauthorized and unbooked passengers out of total 51 passengers in the bus and from five out of the ten unauthorized and unbooked passengers fare had been pre-realised by the respondent No. 2 without issuing any ticket. The five unbooked passengers had also made complaint before the checking squad regarding the said fact. All the five unbooked passengers who were found to be simple in nature had travelled eight kilometers in the vehicle.

(3.) The checking squad submitted its checking report to the Director, Vigilance and Security of the petitioner-Corporation and on the basis of the same a charge-sheet was served upon the respondent No. 2 on 20.1.1989 itself. In his Written explanation to the charges the respondent No. 2 has accepted the factum of checking and the detection of the unauthorized and unbooked passengers in the vehicle on 20.1.1989. Thereafter a domestic enquiry was held against the respondent No. 2 in which the Traffic Inspector, Raj Nandan Prasad who had checked the vehicle on 20.1.1989 gave his statement and was cross-examined by the respondent No. 2. Opportunity was given to the respondent No. 2 to produce material and adduce evidence on his behalf ur3on which he submitted his written arguments stating that he had nothing more to add or to adduce any defence witness in the matter. The order-sheets of the enquiry proceedings had also been maintained. In his enquiry report dated 8.6.1989 the Enquiry Officer found the respondent No. 2 guilty of the charges leveled against him. On a consideration of the enquiry report and other materials the Additional Managing Director of the Corporation passed his order dated 24.7.1989 dismissing the respondent No. 2 from service which was sent to the Divisional Manager, Bhagalpur for its communication to the respondent No. 2.