Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. This writ petition is directed against the removal order dated 6.10.1987 passed by Regional Manager, U.P. State Road, Transport Corporation, Azamgarh (respondent No. 2) and the appellate order dated 4.4.1989 passed by the Dy. Chief Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (East Zone), Varanasi rejecting the petitioner's appeal.

2. The brief facts arise out this petition are that the petitioner was appointed as conductor on 15.6.1978 in U.P. State Road Corporation (in short UPSRTC). He was placed under suspension on 31.3.1987 (Annexure-3) while posted under Regional Manager, UPSRTC, Azamgarh on the allegation that he was carrying passengers without tickets, A charge sheet was issued to him on 31.3.87 (Annexurel) alleging that on 14.3.87 while he was discharging duty as Conductor in Bus No. UGB-191 on Majhighat-Ballia-Gorakhpur route, the bus was checked by the checking squad at Paharpur at about 12.00 noon when it was found that there were 106 passengers travelling in the bus and 68 were without tickets. When the checking officials demanded block book from the petitioner he kept himself engaged in issuing tickets hurriedly and prepared six collective tickets of 54 passengers and one collective ticket of nine passenger. Still 14 passengers were found travelling] without tickets who were issued tickets alongwith penalty. In support of the charges the checking report dated 19.3.87 submitted by the checking team, was relied upon.

3. The petitioner submitted reply dated 1.6.87 (Annexure-4) stating that on account of Holi festival a number of passengers were travelling by a private bus which got broken down on road near Paharpur when the bus on which the petitioner was discharging duty was passing through, the passenger, stopped the same and boarded without tickets. The petitioner repeatedly asked them to obtain tickets but the passengers did not pay any attention. However, while he was issuing collective tickets, at that time the checking team intervened, resulting in that 14 passengers were found without tickets. The aforesaid facts were explained to the checking team. He further stated that all the passengers were immediately issued tickets alongwith penalty by the Checking Team therefore, no loss has been suffered by UPSRTC. The boarding of the passengers on account of Holi was a situation beyond control of the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 after considering the reply of the petitioner, appointed one Sri D.P. Srivastava, a retired judge as Inquiry Officer for holding regular departmental enquiry. After completion of the enquiry, a report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer on 20.7.1987 (Annexure-7) holding the petitioner guilty of the charge. He further observed that the petitioner had obtained fare from the passengers but did not issue tickets to them and therefore, was guilty of misconduct in discharge of his duty. Respondent No. 2 furnished copy of the Inquiry Officer to the petitioner along with a show cause notice dated 5.8.1987 (Annexure-6) which was replied by the petitioner vide his letter dated 8.9.87 (Annexure-8), The disciplinary authority after consideration of the entire material on record imposed punishment of removal upon the petitioner vide order dated 6.1.0.87 (Annexure-9). The petitioner preferred statutory appeal before respondent No. 1 on 3.11.87 which has been rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 4.4.1989. The petitioner has averred that appellate order was made available to him on 6.7.93 and thereafter he has preferred the present writ petition.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order; of punishment and that of the appellate Authority's order are non speaking and unreasoned, therefore, is liable to be set aside. It is further contended that on the basis of the material available on record, it cannot be said that the report of the inquiry officer was worth acceptable. Consequently the findings of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 cannot be said to be correct being based on the inquiry report. His further argument is that the impugned order of punishment is based on surmises and conjecture. He submitted that the reply of the petitioner has not been considered and the relevant material available on record has been ignored. It is further submitted that since the punishment was already imposed on the date of checking i.e. the tickets were prepared alongwith penalty which was realized from the petitioner, therefore, he could not be punished again for the same charge. It is also submitted that without examining the 14 passengers who were allegedly traveling in the bus without tickets, the petitioner could not have been held guilty of the aforesaid charge particularly when the fare alongwith fine has already been realized for the aforesaid 14 passengers as this amounts to double jeopardi.