Case :- WRIT - A No. - 34089 of 1995 Petitioner :- U.P.S State Road Transport Corporation Respondent :- State Public Services Tribunal & Another Counsel for Petitioner :- S. Sharma,Rahul Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
(Order on Delay Condonation Application)
1. This in an application seeking condonation of delay in filing substitution application.
2. Heard.
3. Cause shown is sufficient.
4. Delay in filing the substitution application is hereby condoned.
5. Application is allowed.
Order Date :- 26.4.2018/sailesh Case :- WRIT - A No. - 34089 of 1995 Petitioner :- U.P.S State Road Transport Corporation Respondent :- State Public Services Tribunal & Another Counsel for Petitioner :- S. Sharma,Rahul Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
(Order on Substitution Application)
1. Heard.
2. Substitution application is allowed.
3. Necessary substitution be carried out during course of day.
Order Date :- 26.4.2018/sailesh Case :- WRIT - A No. - 34089 of 1995 Petitioner :- U.P.S State Road Transport Corporation Respondent :- State Public Services Tribunal & Another Counsel for Petitioner :- S. Sharma,Rahul Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Shubham Agarwal, Advocate holding brief of Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for State.
2. This writ petition is directed against judgment and order dated 30.06.1995, passed by State Public Service Tribunal, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") in Claim Petition No. 387/V/RMI/1988, whereby order of major punishment dated 18.03.1986 removing claimant-respondent no. 2 from service, has been set aside and petitioner has been directed to reinstate him with all consequential benefits.
3. On receipt of inquiry report submitted by Inquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority sought a report from Regional Accounts Officer, Meerut according to whom, petitioner was found guilty of misappropriation of an amount to the tune of Rs. 3541.69 p. being in excess of Rs. 1327.08 p. being the amount of material found short in stock. Relying on this report, Disciplinary Authority held petitioner guilty and imposed punishment of removal from service vide order dated 18.03.1986.
4. Admittedly, respondent-employee was not confronted with aforesaid report of Regional Accounts Officer nor the said document was relied on to prove charge at any point of time. Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding in this regard in para 18 of impugned judgment which reads as under :-
"18. Now coming to the merit of the impugned punishment order passed against the petitioner removing him from service and contained in Annexure No. 6 of the petition and the facts related to it, after having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the extraneous material has been considered by the punishing authority and the findings recorded by him, I further find are vague. The pu8nishing authority, in the opening of the impugned punishment order, has undoubtedly mentioned about the charge sheet dated 15.02.1977 served on the petitioner and has also stated about the factum of the verification of the store in the year 1973-74 and 1974-75 and the amount of the material to the tune of Rs. 4399.01 p. was found short and the amount of Rs. 3541.69 p. of the material found in excess. It has further been stated by him that on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, a report from Regional Accounts Officer of Meerut has obtained and according to his report the petitioner was found guilty of the amount of Rs. 3541.69 p. being in excess and Rs. 1327.08 p. being the amount of the material found short in the stock. There is nothing on the record to show that the said report of the Regional Accounts Officer was shown to the petitioner. The punishing authority has also not mentioned the date of the said report of Regional Accounts Officer relied upon in the charge sheet and, thus, it can not be definitely said that the said report was one of the same report of Regional Accounts Officer relied upon in the charge sheet. In the written statement also the opposite parties have not stated anything clearly in this regard. It is certainly an extraneous material considered by the punishing authority and the impugned punishment order, in my view, can not be held legal and justified on this very ground of the consideration f extraneous material."
5. Therefore, it is evident that report of Regional Accounts Officer, who was neither Inquiry Officer nor Disciplinary Authority, was never disclosed to claimant-respondent-2 and on the basis of of that report major punishment of removal from service has been inflected by Disciplinary Authority. Hence in my opinion, the Tribunal has rightly held that extraneous material has been taken into consideration.
6. Even otherwise, counsel for petitioner could not dispute that before passing the order of major punishment, report of Regional Accounts Officer was not disclosed to claimant-respondent-2.
7. In view of above, finding recorded by Tribunal cannot be faulted and needs no interference by this Court in writ jurisdiction.
8. No other point has been raised.
9. Writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.4.2018 sailesh