Court No. - 2
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14979 of 2006 Petitioner :- Bansh Raj Dhobi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Kumar Srivastava,Adarsh Bhushan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,G.P. Gupta,Sunil Kumar Misra
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioner a driver in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'Corporation'), against whom disciplinary proceedings was initiated by issuing charge-sheet dated 13 October 1999. The allegation against the petitioner was that while driving the Bus rashly and negligently caused accident, thus, causing loss to the department at Rs. 1,00,000/-. The spot of the accident and the damaged Bus was duly inspected/enquired into and on a report it transpires that the petitioner caused loss to the Corporation. The petitioner failed to inform the authorities about the accident nor first information report was lodged. Consequently, the petitioner came to be charged primarily on three counts: (i) accident of the Bus had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving; (ii) petitioner did not inform the authorities nor lodged a first information report; (iii) loss caused to the Corporation was assessed at Rs. 1 lac.
Petitioner participated in the enquiry by filing objections to the charges. The Enquiry Officer held that charge no. 1 was not proved, but charge no. 2 came to be proved. The disciplinary authority/Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, issued a show cause notice on 24 November 2001, disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, giving cogent reasons for the disagreement. Petitioner replied to the show cause notice and on considering the reply, the petitioner was held guilty of the charges, consequently, loss at Rs. 50,000/- was directed to the recovered from the salary of the petitioner by deducting Rs. 1,000/- per month and by way of penalty two increments was withheld.
Aggrieved by the order dated 28 October 2002, passed by the disciplinary authority, petitioner preferred an appeal which came to be dismissed by the appellate authority/General Manager on 13 October 2005.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has made three fold submissions: (i) that the steering of the Bus was defective; (ii) the conductor of the Bus had lodged a first information report;
(iii) the Bus was an old Bus liable to be auctioned, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to fastened with the loss caused to the Corporation.
On specific query, learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the factum of the incident and the loss caused to the vehicle due to accident.The procedure prescribed under the Rules applicable to disciplinary proceedings was duly followed.
In the counter affidavit it has been denied that first information report was lodged either by the petitioner or the conductor, further, no information was given by the petitioner/conductor to the Corporation/authorities that the Bus met with an accident; the disciplinary authority has categorically held that while the petitioner had taken the Bus, he was duly satisfied that the Bus was not defective. The accident had taken due to the rash and negligent driving, thereby, causing loss to the Corporation. Petitioner was held guilty of rash and negligent driving which was the cause of the accident and the consequent loss of the property.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised factual issues in writ jurisdiction which was duly considered by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority. The Court in exercise of its equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 is not sitting in appeal over the decision in departmental enquiry on merits. The scope of judicial review of departmental proceedings is confined to the decision making process and not the decision.
Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned order. It is not his case that the procedure prescribed under the Rules was not followed. The factum of accident is not being disputed. The evidences, supports the finding of the disciplinary authority that petitioner was rash and negligent while driving, therefore, was held responsible for the loss caused to the Corporation.
In view thereof, the writ petition being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed.
It is clarified that no other point or ground was pressed.
No cost.
Order Date :- 29.5.2019 S.Prakash