Allahabad High Court
Satyaveer Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 13 September, 2019
Author: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 16 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8153 of 2017 Petitioner :- Satyaveer Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Adarsh Bhushan,Mangla Prasad Rai Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Present petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 30.8.2014, 18.6.2015 and 19.12.2016 passed by respondent nos.4,3, and 2.
Factual matrix of the case in brief are, that petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter called as 'Corporation') on 17.12.2007. It was on 19.5.2011 that petitioner was suspended from service on charges that while discharging his duty as Conductor in Bus No.U.P.81AA 9327, on 23.3.2011, while the Bus was going from Delhi to Jirauli, the Bus was intercepted by the Flying Squad and on checking of the Bus, it was found carrying 37 passengers while tickets of 32 passengers were issued by the Conductor of the Bus.
A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and a show cause notice was issued on 26.7.2014, levelling allegation against him that five passengers were travelling without tickets in the Bus. The said show cause notice was replied by the petitioner on 29.8.2014. By order dated 30.8.2014 passed by Assistant Regional Manager, Atrauli Depot, the services of the petitioner was terminated.
Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioner filed an appeal before Regional Manager of the Corporation at Aligarh, raising various grounds, which included that out of five passengers, three passengers were minor aged about 7 years, 8 years and 10 years and half tickets were issued against them, while out of other two passengers, one was handicapped and other was accompanying him and was carrying a photocopy of disability certificate. It was also stated that petitioner had not made any cutting on the records and the same was made by one the members of the Checking Squad and while the other member of the Squad has asked for some illegal gratification so as to hush up the matter. The appellate authority on 18.6.2015, rejected the appeal of petitioner. Being aggrieved, petitioner filed a revision before respondent no.2 i.e. Managing Director of the Corporation raising various grounds, but the revision also met the same fate and was rejected by the order dated 19.12.2016 hence the present petition.
Sri Amit Kumar Singh, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated and he was not carrying any passenger without tickets. During checking, he had explained to the Members of the Flying Squad that three passengers were minor and he had issued half tickets to them and had made entries in his records, while out of other two passengers, one was handicapped and was carrying a photocopy of disability certificate, while one person was accompanying him, as such there was no passenger on the Bus without ticket during the checking. It was also contended that the Inquiry Officer did not record the statement of members of the Flying Squad nor called them for cross examination, as their testimony was essential for holding the petitioner guilty for not issuing tickets to these five passengers. He also submitted that the cutting made on the documents was not by the petitioner, but was made by the members of the Flying Squad and this factum could have been proven only when members of the Flying Squad were required to be present before the Inquiry Officer, but Inquiry Officer not having called them cannot rely upon such cuttings on the documents to hold the petitioner guilty.
He further submitted that the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority only followed the order of the disciplinary authority, which did not record any finding as to the grounds taken by petitioner in his appeal/revision and has only confirmed the order of the disciplinary authority without recording any finding, though being the last fact finding authority.
On the contrary, Sri U.S. Singh Bisen, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent nos.2 to 4 submitted that petitioner was guilty of carrying five passengers without tickets and when the Flying Squad intercepted the Bus, these passengers were not having valid tickets and reply given by petitioner was only an alibi to save himself from punishment. He further submitted that petitioner had also been previously caught carrying passengers without ticket. He further submitted that petitioner was given full opportunity to defend at every stage and dismissal order cannot be justified on any account.
I have heard Sri Amit Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri U.S. Singh Bisen, learned Counsel for respondent-Corporation and perused the material on record.
It is an admitted case that the Bus No.UP.81AA 9327, which was going from Delhi to Jirauli was intercepted by the Flying Squad and during checking, it was found by the Checking Squad that the Bus was carrying five passengers without tickets. It is not in dispute that out of five passengers, who were alleged to be travelling without tickets, three were children and the Conductor of the Bus had issued half tickets against them and had entered into his record, while other two persons who were without ticket, one was handicapped and was carrying a photocopy of his disability certificate and the other person was accompanying him.
The case of petitioner is that on his counting, he found 37 passengers, while two of them who were of handicapped quota, were not issued tickets while he was asking the guardian of the three children to take full ticket when the alleged Bus was intercepted by the Flying Squad, as such he was not guilty of carrying any passengers without ticket. While the case of the Corporation is that the petitioner was carrying these five passengers without ticket. The disciplinary authority while terminating the services of the petitioner vide order dated 30.8.2014 failed to record as to how it disbelieved that no handicapped person was travelling on the Bus as the statement of the members of the Flying Squad was neither recorded nor they were asked by the Inquiry Officer to appear before him for any oral examination or cross-examination by the petitioner. Further, it is an admitted case that three tickets were issued for minor children, as such the finding recorded to the effect that the Bus was carrying five members without ticket on fact of it is false. As the disciplinary authority completely failed to record any finding to the effect that how many tickets were issued by the petitioner including any ticket issued to minor children, has only recorded the amount of money that was collected from the sale of tickets to the passengers.
Thus, before arriving at the fact to the effect that any number of passengers were travelling in the Bus on the relevant date without ticket, it was necessary for the disciplinary authority to record finding as to the number of tickets issued to the passengers in various categories.
Disciplinary authority in a cursory manner, only endorsing the inquiry report held the petitioner liable for carrying five passengers without ticket without recording any finding to the effect that the reply submitted by petitioner was not sustainable, when the case of petitioner clearly demonstrated and the same being accepted by the authority that three tickets were issued to the minors and two persons were travelling with disability certificate in the handicapped quota.
Further, the Regional Manager, being the appellate authority should have considered the grounds of appeal and should have recorded categorical finding before arriving to the conclusion that petitioner was liable for dismissal of service on the ground of carrying five passengers without ticket, as the finding arrived at by him, was not substantiated either with the inquiry report nor with the fact of the case. The same error has been committed by the revisional authority which also while passing order dated 19.12.2016 has upheld the order of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority and had rejected the revision of the petitioner.
In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the orders dated 30.8.2014 passed by respondent no.4, 18.6.2015 passed by respondent no.3 and order dated 19.12.2016 passed by respondent no.2 are unsustainable and are hereby quashed. The matter stands remitted to the disciplinary authority to decide the same afresh in accordance with law.
Accordingly, writ petition stands partly allowed.
Order Date :- 13.9.2019 S. Singh