RESERVED : 30.03.2018
DELIVERED :24.04.2018
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 31493 of 2016
Petitioner :- Lallo Prasad Sonkar
Respondent :- Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kripa Shanker Mishra,A. Tandon,Abhishek Tandon
Counsel for Respondent :- Sunil Kumar Misra,S.C.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard Sri Abhishek Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D. S. Khan, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Sunil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, praying for quashing for the revisional order dated 05.11.2015, passed by respondent no.1,Managing Director, U.P. State Road, Transport Corporation, Lucknow, Appellate order dated 03.05.2015, passed by the respondent no.3, General Manager (Operations), U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Lucknow and the removal order dated 14.08.2014, passed by respondent no.4, Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Allahabad.
The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, while working as conductor of Bus No. U.P.70 AT 9782, plying on Kanpur- Allahabad Route was subjected to Inspection of the Bus on 31.12.2013 at 7.09 A.M. at Thariao. During the aforesaid inspection 54 passengers were found in the Bus and 10 out of them were found without ticket. The respondent no.5 suspended the petitioner from service on 03.01.2014 and a charge sheet dated 06.01.2014 was issued to the petitioner. An enquiry was conducted by the Assistant Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Allahabad and he submitted enquiry report dated 28.05.2014. A second show cause notice dated 31.05.2014 was issued by the disciplinary authority, respondent no.5, which was duly replied by the petitioner on 30.07.2014. The disciplinary authority passed the order dated 14.08.2014, awarding punishment of removal from service against the petitioner. The petitioner unsuccessfully preferred an appeal against the punishment order and also a revision, which were dismissed by the order dated 03.05.2015 and 05.11.2015 passed by the respondent nos. 1 and 3 respectively. The petitioner, through his Counsel, Sri Kripa Shankar Mishra, Advocate sought copy of the minutes of the disciplinary proceedings conducted against him, from the public information officer of the respondent no.5, under the Right to Information Act, but no information is given to him and he preferred a First Appeal dated 19.02.2016, which was rejected by the first appellate authority on 25.05.2016 and his second appeal before the State Information Commission was not decided, hence the petitioner has approached this Court.
The respondents have filed a Counter Affidavit stating that the information sought by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act is exempted from disclosure under Section-8(d)(j) of Right to Information Act. The petitioner was caught by the State Flying Squad headed by Sri R.K.Saroj, Traffic Superintendent, who found the petitioner carrying 10 ticket less passengers. The punishment, appellate and revisional orders are self speaking. The petitioner was asked by the enquiry officer, whether he wants to lead any further evidence but he denied and now he can not challenge the merits of the enquiry conducted against him.
The petitioner has filed a Supplementary Affidavit bringing on record a Circular dated 12.03.1996 issued by the respondent no.1, Managing Director, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Lucknow, regarding the procedure to be followed in respect of disciplinary proceedings against the employees of the Corporation. This circular was relied upon by the petitioner in his reply dated 30.07.2014 to the second show cause notice dated 31.05.2014 and was also relied while filing the revision before the respondent no.1. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to Clause- 1(c), 6 (c) and (f) of the Circular dated 12.03.2016, which translated from Vernacular are as follows, 1-(c).Because in this department the report of “without ticket” is more as compared to report under other heads, therefore, it should be specially taken care that the statements of passengers found without ticket should definitely be recorded, if it is not possible then the names and addresses of such passengers should be noted and if both the aforesaid things are not possible, then while making endorsement in the way bill of without ticket a note should be compulsorily be recorded as to why the statements etc., of the passengers could not be taken. Accordingly, care should be taken about the above requirements in the detailed reports.
6-(c).While, passing the final order, only that incident should be taken into consideration to which the disciplinary proceeding is related.
6-(f). As far as possible, the disciplinary authority shall consider the service record and service book of the delinquent employee, while passing the final orders.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that without complying with the aforesaid clauses of the own circular dated 12.03.1996 of the Corporation, the respondent no.5, got the enquiry conducted against the petitioner and also punished him. There was allegation of carrying 10 ticket less passengers in the Corporation Bus, but in the entire enquiry neither the statement of any passenger recorded by the flying squad nor name and address of any passenger nor any endorsement on the way bill was proved by the prosecution. No reason was disclosed, why the aforesaid requirements of the circular were not complied.
He has further argued that the driver of the vehicle was a competent witness who could have proved whether the passengers who were found without ticket had just boarded the bus and the petitioner was in the process of issuing tickets, when the inspection was conducted by the state flying squad or not. The driver was neither examined nor the petitioner was granted opportunity to cross examine him and therefore, the truth could not come out in the enquiry.
It has been further argued that the cash bag of the petitioner was not inspected by the State Flying Squad, which could have proved whether he had realized the money from such passengers and had not issued them tickets for ulterior motives. In fact Rs.3300/- was recovered as penalty from the ticket less passengers by the inspected team and endorsement to this effect was made on the way bill.
Finally the Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the appellate order illegally records the finding that the petitioner is habitually corrupt. He has been found involved in different types of corruption, prior to this incident. There are no details regarding the prior incidents and the revisional order also records the finding that the revisionist was earlier punished 8 times in the cases of corruption and one case of “without ticket” is pending against him and therefore, he is habitual offender which are baseless and no such material was on record or ever disclosed to the petitioner. In paragraph nos.29 to 33 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated as follows:-
29. That the Enquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority have given undue weightage to the statements of the inspection team and have considered the same as proved without any evidence in support thereof, while discarding the statements of the petitioner, without any cogent reasoning, in a high handed and arbitrary manner.
30. That the Appellate Authority/ General Manager (Operations), U.P.S.R.T.C., Lucknow passed the aforesaid Order dated 03.05.2015 dismissing the Appeal, without any application of mind, in a mechanical manner.
31. That the Revisional Authority/ Managing Director, U.P.S.R.T.C., Lucknow, while passing the Revisional Order dated 05.11.2015 did not consider the grounds/legality of the Order dated 14.08.2014 of the Disciplinary Authority and the Order dated 03.05.2015 of the Appellate Authority.
32. That the Revisional Authority/ Managing Director, U.P.S.R.T.C., Lucknow, while passing the Revisional Order dated 05.11.2015 passed the same solely on the basis of surmises and conjectures.
33. That the revisional Authority/ Managing Director, U.P.S.R.T.C., Lucknow, while passing the Revisional Order dated 05.11.2015 relied heavily on the reasoning that the petitioner had allegedly been punished in 8 (eight) proceeding regarding corruption charges and 1 (one) proceeding regarding without ticket was pending, while in fact it is specifically and categorically stated that the petitioner has NEVER been punished in any disciplinary proceeding(s) regarding corruption charges.
In the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the reply to paragraph no.33 has been given in paragraph no.20, which is as follows, “ 20. That the contents of paragraph nos. 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33 of the writ petition as stated are incorrect and misconceived, hence not admitted and denied and in reply thereto it is submitted that the finding of fact of carrying ticketless passengers is based on cogent evidence, and the having regard to gravity of misconduct passed the order of removal following the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the N.W. Karnataka R.T.C. Vs. H.H. Pujar, AIR 2008 SC 3060, and Divisional Manager, Rajasthan S.R.T.C. Vs. Kamruddin, AIR 2009 SC 2528 that in case conductor is found carrying ticket less passengers no order punishment except that of dismissal or removal from service shall be given to him. This Hon’ble Court observed that it is shocking to know that a conductor who was found carrying ticket less passengers on several times was not removed from service by the corporation”.
.From the above reply to the contents of paragraph no.33 of the writ petition, it is clear that the appellate and revisional orders have been passed on the basis of extraneous and false considerations. The respondents have tried to justify their action even on the basis of false and incorrect findings which are not supported by any document on record.
In view of the above discussions, the punishment order passed by the disciplinary authority, is in violation of the Circular dated 12.03.1996 of the Corporation. The respondent no.5 withheld the best witness, driver of the vehicle, from the enquiry proceedings who could have proved the correct facts. No checking of the cash bag of the petitioner was carried out and it was admitted that the passengers without ticket were issued tickets by the state flying squad after realizing the penalty. Therefore, the punishment order deserves to be quashed. The appellate and revisional orders being based on extraneous considerations and false findings of fact can not be sustained and are also hereby quashed. Since the necessary material to prove the charges, in the form of statements of the passengers found without tickets, non-recording of their names and addresses and non endorsement on the way bill about the fact that the passengers refused to give their statements, names and addresses are not in possession of the Disciplinary Authority, therefore, he cannot be directed to conduct enquiry against the petitioner afresh.
Therefore, the revisional order dated 05.11.2015, passed by respondent no.1,Managing Director, U.P. State Road, Transport Corporation, Lucknow, Appellate order dated 03.05.2015, passed by the respondent no.3, General Manager (Operations), U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Lucknow and the removal order dated 14.08.2014, passed by respondent no.4, Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Allahabad are hereby quashed. The petitioner is held entitled to reinstatement in service on the post of Conductor and is also entitled to get to arrears of salary and other consequential benefits within 6 weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order before the respondent no.5.
This writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 24.04.2018
SS