Heard Mr. O. P. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Chandrashekhar Pandey, learned Counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged order of dismissal dated 23.9.2003, appellate order dated 18.11.2003 and revisional order dated 31.1.2005, contained in Annexure Nos. 1, 2 and 3, respectively, to the writ petition.
Shorn off unnecessary details, the facts of the case are as under :-
On the basis of a report submitted by the Checking Staff on 22.04.2003, the petitioner, namely, Manbodh Lal Srivastava, who was the Conductor and was posted in Cantt Depot, Varanasi Region of the U.P. State Roadways Transport Corporation [in short referred to as the Corporation], was placed under suspension by the Regional Manager of the Corporation in contemplation of the disciplinary proceedings vide order dated 26.04.2003. A charge sheet dated 02.05.2003 containing 15 charges against the petitioner was served upon him. The main charge against the petitioner was that on checking, the petitioner had failed to furnish the 'Way Bill" and also he did not issue tickets to the passengers though he had realized fare from them and incited passengers against the checking staff.
On receipt of the charge-sheet, the petitioner has submitted his reply denying the allegations levelled against him and alleged that the checking staff had demanded illegal gratification from the petitioner and on his inability to satisfy their demand, the checking staff had submitted a false report, making accusations against him. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer concluded the enquiry and submitted the report finding the charges levelled against the petitioner to be proved. After submission of enquiry report, the Regional Manager [opposite party no.3] issued a show cause notice to the petitioner annexing therewith a copy of the enquiry report. Ultimately, the petitioner was removed from service vide order dated 23.09.2003 by the disciplinary authority/appointing authority.
According to the petitioner, against the aforesaid punishment order, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the Pradhan Prabandhak (Karmik) [opposite party no.2] vide order dated 18.11.2003. Being dis-satisfied by aforesaid two orders, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before opposite party no.1 [Chairman, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation], which too met with the same fate and was rejected vide order dated 31.01.2005.
Hence this writ petition.
It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted against the petitioner in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice. The appeal of the petitioner preferred against the punishment has been rejected in a mechanical way without application of mind.
On the strength of the decision rendered in [2009 (1) ALJ 257] : State of Uttaranchal and others vs. Kharak Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned orders are bad in law as enquiry proceedings were completed in blatant disregard of the principles of natural justice, as no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to defend himself and rebut the alleged charges before the Enquiry Officer.
Refuting the allegations of the petitioner's Counsel, it has been pointed out by the Counsel for the Corporation that the petitioner committed gross misconduct in collecting the money from 64 passengers and did not issue tickets to them. There were 76 passengers travelling in the bus and only 12 passengers were issued tickets and that too erroneously, five passengers were issued advance tickets of lesser fare from the station which was ahead to the inspection spot. If the Bus had not been interrupted and checked in the way, the Conductor of the Bus might have succeeded in embezzling the government money collected by charging ticket fare.
Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that in the enquiry, petitioner was given ample opportunity to defend himself and after the charges were found proved against the petitioner as he failed to prove his innocence, the impugned order of punishment has been passed. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that reasonable opportunity was not afforded to the petitioner. As a matter of fact the petitioner was given opportunity at every stage. The appellate as well as revisional authority has also applied its mind and affirmed the order of punishment on account of gravity of charges.
To substantiate his arguments, Counsel for the Corporation has relied upon Regional Manager, U.P.SRTC, Etawah and others Vs. Hoti Lal and another : (2003) 3 SCC 605, V. Ramana Vs. A.P. SRTC and others : (2005) 7 SCC 338, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Dehradun Vs. Suresh Pal : (2006) 8 SCC 108, A.P.SRTC Vs. Raghuda Siv Sankar Prasad : (2007) 1 SCC 222, U.P.SRTC Vs. Ram Kishan Arora : (2007) 4 SCC 627, Uttaranchal Transport Corporation Vs. Sanjay Kumar Nautiyal : (2008) 12 SCC 131, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Suresh Chand Sharma : (2010) 6 SCC 555, and U.P. State Road Transport Corp. and another Vs. Gopal Shukla and another (passed in Civil Appeal No. 2038 of 2012, decided on 1.9.2015).
Before appreciating the rival submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties, it would be apt to mention that the post of Conductor is a post of trust and the person guilty of breach of trust is to be dealt with iron hand. The loss of confidence occupies the primary factor and not the amount of money and sympathy and generosity cannot be a factor, which is permissible in law in such matters.
In the case of V. Ramana (supra), which has been relied upon by the Corporation, the Apex Court has held that a Conductor holds a post of trust. A person guilty of breach of trust should be imposed punishment of removal from service. The appellant's conduct in collecting fare at the designated place and not collecting fare from persons, who had already travelled were in violation of various regulations contained in the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.
Again, in the case of Raghuda Siva Sankar Prasad [supra] which has been relied upon by the respondent, it has been held by the Apex Court that once an employee has lost the confidence of the employer, it would not be safe and in the interest of the Corporation to continue the employee in service.
In Hoti Lal (Supra), the Apex Court has considered the facts that the employee was a conductor on duty in Bus No. UGG-108. While checking was done by the Assistant Regional Manager, it was found that 16 persons were without ticket. Even after realizing fare from the passengers, no ticket had been issued upto the time of Checking. These according to the authorities amounted to dereliction of duty, violation of Employee's Conduct Code and misappropriating employer's money. After being subjected to the disciplinary proceedings, the employee was terminated. The order of termination was assailed in writ petition No. 4535/SS/1991, which was dismissed. The matter was carried in Special Appeal before the Division Bench by the employee and the Division Bench set aside the order of termination leaving it open to the employer to award any punishment but not removal or termination or compulsory retirement. The correctness of the said judgment passed by the Division Bench was questioned by the Corporation before the Apex Court and the only point raised by the Corporation was whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the quantum of punishment awarded to the respondent no.1-Hoti Lal. The Apex Court while allowing the appeal and maintaining the order of removal held that the Court shall not intervene unless the punishment is wholly disproportionate. Further the Court or Tribunal while dealing with the quantum of punishment has to record reasons as to why it is felt that the punishment does not commensurate with the proved charges.
Recently, in the case of Gopal Shukla [supra], the first respondent, namely, Gopal Shukla, in identical situation like the petitioner, was visited with the punishment of dismissal. On an industrial dispute being raised, the award was given in favour of employee by the Labour Court and the employer was directed to reinstate the workman. The Corporation assailed the said award in a writ petition before the High Court and the High Court concurred with the award relating to reinstatement but as far as the grant of back wages is concerned, it reduced the same to 25 percent. The correctness of aforesaid orders was questioned by the Corporation before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Apex Court observed that in corruption cases, degree of corruption is immaterial and no lenient attitude is required to be shown. The Apex Court upheld the order of disciplinary authority who had dismissed the Bus Conductor for allowing 25 passengers to travel in the bus without ticket, and reversed the concurrent findings of the Labour Court and High Court, who had taken a lenient view, and had reinstated him to service. The Apex Court held that both the Labour Court and the High Court have fallen in error by imposing a lesser punishment on the workman whereas the only punishment, on establishment of the charges which have been accepted by the labour court, should have been dismissal and not a lesser one. It would be useful to reproduce the relevant observations:-
"The reasoning, if we allow ourselves to say, constrain us to ruminate whether the Labour Court has been swayed away by the concept "forgiveness is the economy of the heart" and dominantly affected by the conception "mercy among the virtues is like the moon among the stars", totally remaining oblivious to the basic principle that when the workman shatters the "institutional trust" and his act has the potentiality to corrode the faith and belief of the employer, does he deserve any leniency. It is not the quantum per se but the breach of trust with reference to duty and obligation of the employee that must be the edifice of consideration for imposition of punishment."
In the instant case, on 22.04.2003, the petitioner was found to be carrying 64 passengers without ticket out of total 76 passengers during the checking by Assistant Transport Inspector, Jaunpur while carrying Bus No. UP65E 1731 on Varanasi-Kerakat via Sindhaura route. The Assistant Regional Manager was also present during the checking. These passengers were travelling from Kutchehry to Sindhpur. The Assistant Transport Inspector had prepared a combined ticket No. 2421561 and collected Rs. 1140/- from the passengers. The petitioner had also prepared short distance tickets for 05 passengers. The petitioner has alleged that all the without ticket passengers were students of Dobhi Post Graduate College who had boarded just before Police Station Gosaipur and in spite of petitioner's repeated requests they did not purchase the tickets. In these backgrounds, the petitioner directed the Driver of the Bus to stop the Bus at Police Station Gosaipur but before reaching there the inspection was made in which 64 passengers were found travelling without ticket. Thereafter, on the basis of inspection report, a complaint was made by the inspecting authority to the Regional Manager, U.P.SRTC, Varanasi (opposite party No.3) who instituted an enquiry against the petitioner and appointed Assistant Regional Manager, Kashi Depot, Varanasi (opposite party No.4) as Enquiry Officer and in the enquiry, he was held guilty and accordingly, he was dismissed from service.
In the inquiry report, this fact has found space that during checking 64 without ticket passengers had been found who were travelling from Katchehry to Sidhaura while the fare had already been taken. For these 64 without ticket passengers, a single group ticket bearing number 2421561 amounting to Rs. 1140/- including penalty had been prepared which establishes that the stand of the petitioner is an afterthought and as such, petitioner cannot be absolved of the charges levelled against him.
In view of the aforesaid discussions, there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order of punishment.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Costs easy.
Order Date : 29th April, 2016 Ajit/-