Allahabad High Court
Daya Ram vs U.P. State Road Transport Corporation ... on 6 March, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Reserved Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:40754 Court No. - 48 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 36970 of 2009 Petitioner :- Daya Ram Respondent :- U.P. State Road Transport Corporation And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- J.P. Singh,Rajesh Kumar,Siya Ram Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- L.D. Rajbhar,Ajeet Kumar Singh,M.M.Sahai,Paras Nath Bind,S.C.,Siya Ram Yadav Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.
1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. M.M. Sahai, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. Petitioner through this writ petition has challenged the order dated 1.06.2009 passed by Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "UPSRTC"), Azamgarh Region, Azamgarh whereby petitioner has been removed from service.
3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that petitioner while working on the post of driver in Azamgarh Depot of the UPSRTC, his services were placed under suspension in contemplation of the disciplinary proceedings. A charge-sheet was served to the petitioner on 14.10.1999 containing allegations that petitioner's Bus No. UP-50C-4804 was checked and it was found that the conductor of the bus, Sri T.N. Mishra has not issued tickets to two passengers and one passenger was carrying a forged ticket. Petitioner (driver) and Sri T.N. Mishra (conductor) instigated the passengers who created difficult situation before the checking party and further petitioner did not follow the instructions given by the checking party and did not drive the bus unless they made favourable remarks in the way-bill.
4. Petitioner duly submitted reply and in the said reply, he categorically stated that issuance of valid ticket to passengers is responsibility of the conductor and driver has nothing to do in the matter. Further when checking party gave signal for stopping the bus, petitioner immediately stopped the bus and thereafter inspection of the bus was done. The suspension of petitioner's services was revoked during pendency of the disciplinary proceedings.
5. The Inquiry Officer after completing disciplinary inquiry, submitted inquiry report on 10.02.2000 and thereafter disciplinary authority issued a show-cause notice which was duly replied by the petitioner on 22.02.2000.
6. The disciplinary authority passed punishment order on 04.10.2000 whereby petitioner was removed from service. Petitioner challenged the punishment order dated 4.10.2000 by filing appeal before the Divisional General Manager, UPSRTC, Varanasi but the said appeal was rejected vide order dated 25.01.2000. Petitioner against the punishment order and appellate order, filed a representation before the Managing Director/Chairman, UPSRTC, Lucknow which was also rejected.
7. Petitioner challenged the aforesaid punishment order dated 04.10.2000, appellate order dated 25.01.2002 and order dated 26.10.2003 by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12310 of 2004 and co-ordinate Bench of this Court allowed the said writ petition vide judgement and order dated 11.09.2008 whereby after recording findings on the merit of the charges, matter was remitted to the disciplinary authority to decide the matter afresh in light of the observations made in the order.
8. The disciplinary authority, after passing of the order dated 11.09.2008 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12310 of 2004, passed an order on 3.12.2008 whereby Assistant Regional Manager, UPSRTC, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar Depot was appointed as Inquiry Officer to hold fresh inquiry against the petitioner in terms of charge-sheet dated 14.10.1999. Newly appointed Inquiry Officer after completing inquiry, submitted inquiry report to Regional Manager, UPSRTC, Azamgarh on 18.03.2000 and on the basis of said inquiry report, disciplinary authority has passed fresh punishment order on 1.06.2009 whereby earlier punishment imposed against the petitioner in the form of removal from service has been reiterated.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that co-ordinate Bench of this Court while allowing Writ Petition No. 12310 of 2004 vide judgement and order dated 11.09.2008 has recorded categorical findings on the merit of the charges i.e. duty to issuing tickets to passengers of the bus is of conductor and for that, driver of the bus cannot be held responsible as duty of the driver is to drive the bus; there is no evidence on record to establish charge of instigation of passengers against the checking party; charge of disobeying directions of the checking party also does not stand proved as the bus was stopped for checking on the directions of the checking party, and on the basis of the aforesaid findings, matter was remitted to disciplinary authority only for a limited purpose i.e. to pass fresh order as per the findings recorded in the order of the Court therefore, it is patently manifest that it was not open for the disciplinary authority to hold fresh inquiry and thereafter to pass punishment order.
10. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the order dated 11.09.2008 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition 12310 of 2004 has not been challenged by the respondents therefore, findings recorded by the Court in respect of the merit of the charges became final and therefore, it was not open either for the disciplinary authority or the second Inquiry Officer to travel beyond the findings recorded by this Court whereas from a bare perusal of order dated 1.06.2009, it becomes patently manifest that the fresh findings have been recorded by the Inquiry Officer in respect of the merit of the charges and the said inquiry report has been relied on by the disciplinary authority for passing fresh punishment order which is impugned in this writ petition therefore, order dated 1.06.2009 is unsustainable in the eyes of law.
11. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that in-fact the order dated 01.06.2009 passed by the disciplinary authority is in the teeth of the judgement and order dated 11.09.2008 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12310 of 2004 as the second Inquiry Officer as well as the disciplinary authority in-fact have acted as appellate forum over the judgement of this Court therefore, the order dated 01.06.2009 cannot sustain in the eyes of law.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has invited attention of this Court towards the fact that disciplinary authority while passing impugned order dated 01.06.2009 has put emphasis that petitioner appeared before the second Inquiry Officer therefore, the findings recorded by the second Inquiry Officer are binding on him but the said fact, on its face, is erroneous as petitioner, on appointment of the second Inquiry Officer, raised his protest and submitted that this Court vide judgement and order dated 11.09.2008 has not made it open to re-inquire the matter but the said protest was ignored accordingly, the impugned order dated 01.06.2009, being in gross violation of the order dated 11.09.2008 passed in Writ Petition No 12310 of 2004, is unsustainable in the eyes of law.
13. This Court has also been apprised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that in the disciplinary proceedings conducted against Mr. T.N. Mishra (conductor of the bus), Inquiry Officer has recorded categorical finding in following terms:
"nks ;k=h fcuk fVdV ys tkus dk nks'k fl) gqvkA vfHkys[kksa esa Qksjtjh psfdax vf/kdkfj;ksa ds lkFk ;kf=;ksa dks HkM+dk dj psfdax vf/kdkfj;ksa dk vigj.k dk iz;kl vkjksi fl) ugha gqvkA vkjksih ij yxk;s x;s vkjksiksa esa ls nks ;k=h fcuk fVdV ys tkus ds fy;s og iw.kZ nks'kh gSa "ks'k vkjksi fl) ugha gq;sA"
14. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on the basis of aforesaid finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer has submitted that once the charge of abduction of checking party has not been found proved against the conductor of the bus, who happens to be main culprit, by no stretch of imagination, the said charge can stand proved against the petitioner.
15. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner thus has concluded his arguments and has submitted that the order dated 01.06.2009 passed by the disciplinary authority is in the teeth of judgement and order dated 11.09.2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 12310 of 2004 therefore, is liable to be quashed by this Court with a further direction for payment of post retiral dues and payment of back-wages for the period from 04.10.2000 till the date, petitioner attained the age of superanuation.
16. Sri M.M. Sahai, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that charge against the petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings is serious in nature as he has been instrumental in instigating the passengers against the checking party and further he did not follow the instructions given by the checking party which resulted in a very miserable condition of the checking party on the spot therefore, the disciplinary authority after considering the entire material on record, has passed the impugned order whereby petitioner has been removed from service. It has further been submitted by learned counsel appearing for the respondents that this Court in its judgment and order dated 11.09.2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 12310 of 2004 has recorded findings on merit of the charges but remitted the matter to disciplinary authority to decide afresh and therefore, disciplinary authority has every right to hold fresh inquiry and further on the basis of second inquiry report, disciplinary authority has passed order on 01.06.2009 and has reiterated the punishment of removal from service, accordingly, it is patently manifest that the order dated 01.06.2009 does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality.
17. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has vehemently argued that the second Inquiry Officer on the basis of material available on record has found the charges proved against the petitioner and thereafter disciplinary authority has passed order on 01.06.2009, as such it is patently manifest that the order dated 01.06.2009 is strictly in terms of the order dated 11.09.2008 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 12310 of 2004.
18. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, thus has concluded his arguments and has submitted that the order dated 01.06.2009 which is impugned in this writ petition, does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality therefore, writ petition filed by the petitioner being absolutely misconceived, is liable to be dismissed by this Court.
19. I have considered rival arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and I find that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and disciplinary authority passed order on 04.10.2000 whereby petitioner was removed from service.
20. This Court further finds that the punishment order dated 4.10.2000 along with appellate order dated 25.01.2002 and order rejecting representation dated 26.12.2003 were challenged before the co-ordinate Bench of this Court by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12310 of 2004 which has been allowed. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while allowing writ petition vide judgement order dated 11.09.2008 has recorded findings on merit of the charges and has held that the charges are not proved against the petitioner and thereafter has remitted the matter to disciplinary authority to pass fresh order in light of the observations made in the order. The relevant paragraphs of the judgement and order dated 11.09.2008 passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12310 of 2004 are extracted as under:
"There appears to be substance in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner that it is the duty of the conductor to issue tickets to the passengers who were travelling in the bus and to ensure that every passenger is travelling in the Bus is having valid ticket for which the Driver whose duty is only to drive the Bus and he has no business with regard to distribution of the tickets cannot be held responsible. So far as the charge of instigating the passengers against the Ticket checking party is concerned, no material evidence is on record to establish this charge. So far as the charge of disobeying of direction of Checking party is concerned, it can not also said to be proved as the Bus was stopped for checking on the directions of the Checking party and if the petitioner would have disobeyed the orders of the Ticket Checking Party, he would not have stopped the Bus for ticket checking.
In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 26.12.2003, 25.1.2002 and 4.10.2000 are quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Disciplinary authority to be decided afresh in the light of the observations made hereinabove and after affording of opportunity of hearing to the petitioner."
21. From bare perusal of the judgement and order dated 11.09.2008, it is crystal clear that the coordinate Bench of this Court has recorded categorical finding that petitioner cannot be held responsible for the charge relating to non-issuance of tickets to the passengers and further there is no material evidence to establish charge of instigating the passengers by the petitioner against the checking party. Further finding has been recorded that the charge of disobeying direction of checking party, does not stand proved as bus was stopped by the petitioner on the directions of the checking party. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court after recording findings on merit of the charges, quashed the punishment order, appellate order and order passed on representation and remitted the matter to disciplinary authority to pass fresh order in light of the observations made in the order therefore, it was not open for the disciplinary authority to hold fresh inquiry in the matter and thereafter on the basis of fresh findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, to pass the order thereby reiterating earlier punishment of removal from service against the petitioner.
22. This Court is of the view that once charges against the petitioner were considered by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court and findings were recorded on the merit of the charges, it was not open for the disciplinary authority to hold fresh inquiry and on the basis of findings recorded in the inquiry report, to pass fresh punishment order as co-ordinate Bench of this Court in its judgement dated 11.09.2008 did not leave it open to the disciplinary authority to hold fresh inquiry. This Court finds that the order dated 11.09.2008 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12310 of 2004 has not been challenged by the respondents therefore, the said judgement attained finality and findings recorded in the said judgement cannot be overturned either by the second Inquiry Officer or by the disciplinary authority as that will amount to sit over as an appellate authority over the judgement passed by this Court. This Court also finds worth consideration that the charge of instigation of passengers and abduction of the checking party has not been found proved against Mr. T.N. Mishra (conductor of the bus) who was the main culprit then by no stretch of imagination, petitioner being driver, can be held responsible for the said charges.
23. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is allowed. Order dated 01.06.2009 passed by the disciplinary authority, is quashed.
24. Since petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation therefore, now there is no occasion to remit the matter to the disciplinary authority for passing fresh order, accordingly, direction is issued to respondents to pay the petitioner all the post retiral dues admissible to him under the rules by treating him be in continuous service during the period from 04.10.2000 till the date he attained the age of superannuation. Since petitioner has not actually performed the work on his post of driver with the respondents during the period from 4.10.2000 till he attained the age of superannuation, this Court in the given facts and circumstances finds it appropriate to provide 20% back-wages. It is further directed that the admissible post-retiral dues and the 20% back-wages shall be released by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of service of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 6.3.2024 A. Mandhani