MD SALAUDDIN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition was initially filed for quashing the order dated 01.06.2018, whereby and whereunder the pending departmental inquiry against the petitioner had been converted into a proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, pursuant to the petitioner's superannuation and for payment of the retiral dues including arrears of pension to the petitioner. However, during the interregnum period, i.e. during the pendency of the present case, the final order of punishment dated 03.08.2019 has been passed, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been inflicted with the punishment of reduction of 10% pension for a period of 03 years. In such view of the matter, the petitioner had filed an interlocutory application bearing I.A. no. 03 of 2020 for amendment of the writ petition, which was allowed by this Court by an order dated 12.06.2020. It is needless to state here that the retiral dues including the arrears of pension, as admissible to the petitioner, has already stood paid during the pendency of the present petition.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that a show cause notice dated 17.10.2016 was issued to the petitioner when he was posted as an Assistant in the Office of the Commissioner, Saran Division, Chapra as also, was holding the additional charge of Assistant in the Office of the Road Transport Authority and the petitioner was directed to explain as to why permanent permit regarding departure time of a bus from Siwan, was allowed without considering the earlier time table of other buses. The petitioner had then submitted his reply to the said show cause notice dated 17.10.2016, however the respondent-authorities initiated a departmental proceeding against the petitioner and an Inquiry Officer was appointed vide letter dated 23.12.2016. In the meantime, the petitioner had superannuated from the services of the respondents on 31.01.2018, whereafter the disciplinary authority, by an order dated 01.06.2018, had converted the on-going disciplinary proceeding into one under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950. The Inquiry Officer had then submitted his inquiry report dated 15.01.2019, wherein the charges levelled against the petitioner were found to have been proved. The disciplinary authority had, thereafter issued a second show cause notice dated 13.02.2019 to the petitioner, to which the petitioner had submitted his reply and then the impugned order of punishment dated 03.08.2019 has been passed, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been inflicted with the punishment of deduction of 10% pension for 03 years.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the charge framed against the petitioner is regarding the petitioner having fixed the timing of the bus in question, departing from Siwan, as 7:00:01 AM, which in any view of the matter is insignificant. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that firstly, the petitioner had not fixed the timing of the bus in question since he has got no authority to do so under the law, inasmuch as Section 68 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 defines a Transport Authority and Clause 2 thereof, stipulates that a Transport Authority or a Regional Transport Authority shall consist of a Chairman who has had judicial experience or has had experience as an Appellate Authority or a Revisional Authority and such other persons, not being more than four. It is submitted that Section 70 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides that an application for Stage Carriage Permit shall contain minimum and maximum number of daily trips proposed to be provided and the time table of the normal trips, whereas Section 71 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides the procedure to be followed by the Regional Transport Authority while considering the application for Stage Carriage Permit. Section 72 of the Act, 1988 provides for grant of Stage Carriage Permits and Section 72(2)(iv) of the Act, 1988 obliges the Regional Transport Authority to approve the time table of the Stage Carriage. Thus, it is submitted that the petitioner had got no authority to fix the time table of a Stage Carriage and it is the Regional Transport Authority which is authorized to approve the time table of the Stage Carriage and in fact, in terms thereof, the Regional Transport Authority, Saran Division, Chapra, in its meeting held on 24.04.2015, had approved the time table in favour of one Rakesh Kumar, Owner of the vehicle in question and a decision was taken to change the earlier departure time of 7:00 am to 7:00:01 am. It is submitted that the said resolution bears the signature of three Members, hence apparently, the petitioner had no role to play in the fixing of departure time of the bus in question, thus the allegation levelled against the petitioner is out-rightly false and concocted.