MUNSHI KHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition the petitioner challenges the order of his dismissal from services passed on October 16, 1987, from the services of Jammu and Kashmir State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter called as the corporation) and has prayed for the quash -ment of the order dated July 6, 1987, issued by the respondent no. 5 placing the petitioner under suspension and the charge sheet dated August 27, 1987, issued by the respondent no. 4.

(2.) PRECISELY petitioner challenges the enquiry held against him for his dismissal from services from the post of conductor in the corporation. It is stated that while the petitioner was on duty on July 2, 1987, with Bus No. 366 -E owned by the corporation, two ticket checkers, at Hatli more enroute Kathua to Lakhanpur and Pathankote, stepped the Bus and started checking. It is stated that on the basis of the checking a charge sheet was issued after placing the petitioner under suspension under the authority of respondent no. 4 served on the petitioner on August 27, 1987, calling upon the explanation of the petitioner. He was also asked to produce the witnesses in his defence. In a hot haste, it was directed in the said charge sheet that the petitioner should submit his explanation on the same day and respondent 4 on recording the evidence on the very day without affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to cross examine the witnesses or to examine the record was punished and dismissed from the services under the impugned order issued on October 16, 1987. Initially the petition was filed on October 8, 1987, praying for the quashment of the order of suspension dated July 6, 1987, and the charge sheet and the show cause notice issued respectively on August 27, 1987, and September 17, 1987. Later on during the pendency of the petition when the impugned order of termination was passed on October 16, 1987, petitioner made an application seeking amendment of the writ petition which was allowed, hence the amended petition, based on subsequent event challenging the order of the dismissal also. The main challenge is against the procedure adopted by the respondents in violation of the rules applicable to the corporation employees regulating the procedure of enquiry and determination of services including the challenge to the authority of the .respondents of dismissing the petitioner from services.

(3.) THE petition is strongly resisted by the respondents 2 to 5. In the counter filed by Mr. T. R. Sharma, the General Manager of the Corporation a preliminary objection is raised that the petitioner has not filed the appeal before the Competent Authority provided under the rules and on merits it is contended that when the petitioners vehicle was checked by the Flying Squard he was found carrying 38 passengers without tickets though the money was received from them and were found with twenty tickets without entry in the concerned way Bill. It is also alleged that petitioner refused to sign the Way Bill and committed another offence of indiscipline resulting into his order of suspension and was subsequently charge sheeted by the competent authority, who finding him guilty, terminated his services under Regulation 152 of the J&K State Road Transport Corporation Employees Services Regulation 1979 (hereinafter called the Regulations). Petitioner thereafter also filed a detailed rejoinder refuting the allegations made against him in the counter -affidavit.