Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19067 of 2017 Petitioner :- Braham Singh Respondent :- U.P.S.R.T.C. Thru Its M.D. And 2 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Chandra Naik Counsel for Respondent :- Rahul Agarwal
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard Sri Brijesh Chandra Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner ans Sri Shantam Mandhyan, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Rahul Agarwal, who appears for the respondent Corporation.
The petition impugns the order dated 28 October 2014 passed by the Regional Manager/Disciplinary Authority, Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Saharanpur Region, Saharanpur [hereinafter referred to as “the Corporation”] inflicting upon the petitioner the punishment of stoppage of four annual increments. The aforesaid decision of the Disciplinary Authority has been affirmed in appeal by the order dated 18 November 2016 passed by the Principal Manager (Personnel)/Appellate Authority, Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Head Office Lucknow.
The principal charge which was levelled against the petitioner was of gross dereliction of duty and a failure to comply with the directives issued by the Corporation from time to time. It is alleged that despite repeated directions, the petitioner chose not to discharge duties at the place of posting on one pretext or the other. The respondent authority has further taken into consideration the fact that a wholly specious defense of disability was raised.
The only submission which is addressed in challenge to the impugned order is that the medical certificate of the petitioner was not taken note of nor did the respondents appreciate the eye ailment which hampered the discharge of duties by him.
From the Counter Affidavit Sri Mandhyan however points out that the disability which stands certified was only of stiffness in the knee and could not be viewed as being of a character which rendered the petitioner unable to discharge his duties. It is further pertinent to note that the petitioner admittedly never sought or obtained any medical leave. This was a possible course which could have been adopted by him. It is also not his case that he was advised bed rest and consequently was rendered unfit to discharge the duties attached to his post.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner of the petitioner suffering from an eye ailment is also unworthy of acceptance for it is not shown that the eye affliction was of such a debilitating nature that it could be viewed as seriously impeding the functioning of the petitioner or rendering him unable to discharge his duties. On an overall conspectus of the aforesaid facts, it is evident that the decision of the Disciplinary Authority finding the charges as levelled against the petitioner being proved does not suffer from any patent or jurisdictional error. The conclusion arrived at was borne out from the evidence which was collated and placed on the record of the enquiry proceedings.
The law with respect to the extent of judicial review in matters of disciplinary action is well settled. The Court while interfering with a decision taken by a Disciplinary Authority does so only when it is convinced that the findings of guilt as recorded cannot possibly be sustained in light of the evidence gathered or where the findings are perverse or where it is found that the punishment imposed is wholly disproportionate. The submissions advanced by Sri Naik, in the facts of the present case, and for the reasons aforenoted fail to bring the orders impugned within the scope of the limited power which this Court exercises.
The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed .
Order Date :- 30.4.2019 Arun K. Singh ( Yashwant Varma, J.)