Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the contesting State respondents.
By means of the present petition, the petitioner has sought following relief(s):-
I. "to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dt. 22.10.2008 by means of which the order of termination of the services of the respondent no.2 as conductor in the department of petitioner has been quashed and further order has been passed to pay him 50% of the salary for the period wherein the respondent no.2 was not in employment, during the pendency of the present writ petition, so that justice may be done.
II. Certiorari quashing the recovery proceedings initiated in pursuance of the impugned order dt. 22.10.2008 passed by the respondent no.1 during the pendency of the present writ petition, so that justice may be done.
III. Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the present fact and circumstances of the case.
IV. Award cost of the petition."
Contentions are manifold and it has been claimed that in this case, the court below did not consider properly the weight of evidence on record and passed order in conjectural manner against the principles of natural justice and in the teeth of law laid down by this Court. The service of the respondent no.2 was properly terminated by the petitioner on account of his mis-conduct, which was noticed during inspection by the Inspecting Authority Shesh Mani Mishra. Respondent no.2 was found to have been indulged in mis-conduct in not issuing proper tickets to the passengers, who were found travelling inside the bus at the time of inspection.
The Industrial Tribunal failed to appreciate law and the facts as was apparent in the case of respondent no.2 that he misconducted as conductor, while he was in the employment of the petitioner. The piece of evidence was sufficient for the Industrial Tribunal to have acted properly on it but it erred in law and passed arbitrary order, which is not sustainable in the eye of law. Apart from that, learned counsel also pressed the various grounds agitated in support of his claim all the 20 grounds, which he urged in his writ petition.
Respondent no.2 (Gajadhar Nath) appeared in person and has refuted the aforesaid argument by stating that no such inspection as has been claimed was found to have been ever made by the concerned Inspecting Authority, Sheshmani Mishra on 12.11.1998.
This matter was referred for adjudication before the aforesaid Industrial Tribunal Pratham of Allahabad, vide Reference No.568 CP 52/2004 (Sankhya) dated 3.6.2006 treating the same as industrial dispute between the parties with point for determination that whether termination of service of Sri Gajadhar Nath son of Ram Gareeb on 14.12.2001 was proper and valid if not what relief the employee Gajadhar Nath is entitled to receive ?
After the matter was referred, then the reference was taken by the aforesaid Industrial Tribunal, Allahabad and was numbered as Case No. 63 of 2006 and both the sides were issued notices to set up their respective claims.
Pursuant thereto, both the sides appeared before the Tribunal and filed their respective pleadings, which have been taken on record?.
Brief facts as discernible from record appear to be that the respondent no.2 was appointed as conductor on 15.7.1989 by the petitioner corporation and he was working at Zero Road Depo, Allahabad and he rendered flawless service as conductor. However, his services were terminated on 14.12.2001 on account of charge that he was carrying in his bus passengers without ticket. Further, it is discernible that on 12.11.1998, respondent no.2 was conductor of Bus No.UP 77A/2503 (Anubandhit) on Banda-Allahabad route. Shesh Mani Mishra, Assistant Traffic Inspector, Zero Road got the bus stopped at place Katra around 04:00 p.m. and inspected the bus, whereupon he found in all 17 passengers travelling in the bus and who were without ticket. During inspection, it transpired that all the passengers had given money to the conductor but no ticket was issued to them. When route-sheet was asked by the aforesaid inspector, the same was not given to him, instead abusive language was used, thus humiliating him in the presence of passengers and because of this, the aforesaid inspector could not record statement of the passengers. The inspector submitted his report to the office of the petitioner on 13.11.1998, on account of which, respondent no.2 was suspended with immediate effect.
Consequently, departmental inquiry took place and respondent no.2 was charged with allegation of misconduct on 21.12.1998. The respondent no.2 was given full opportunity to set up his defence, whereupon he submitted his reply to the charge. Therefore, after following entire procedure, the inquiry was concluded and charge was found proved against the respondent no.2 On account of aforesaid, notice was issued to the respondent no.2 for hearing on point of quantum of sentence and his services were terminated on 14.12.2001.
Consequently, the matter fructified as reference to the Industrial Tribunal as above.
Both the sides adduced their testimony and produced their documents, which have been elaborated and taken note of by the industrial tribunal and the same need not be referred here for the sake of repetition.
Bare perusal of the order impugned and the record itself is reflective of fact that not an iota of evidence exist indicating fact that any inspection, whatsoever, was ever made on 12.11.1998 by the Assistant Inspector (Sheshmani Mishra). He did not appear before the inquiring authority so as to prove the factum of any inspection being made by him. Moreover, assuming it to be that any inspection took place on 12.11.1998, even then not a single statement of any passenger has been recorded by the concerned inspector as was legally required to be noted by him. The illusive ground taken by the inspector concerned that the statement could not be taken on account of filthy and abusive language used by the respondent no.2 and utter humiliation of inspecting authority was done in the presence of the passengers, due to which he was unable to take statement of any passenger cannot be expected to be reasonable explanation of a situation speaking against the situation itself. Further, the inspector has not noted down any memorandum of any statement given by one or two passenger as oral statement. Thus, it is noticeable that the legal requirement has not been properly completed by the inspector. The requirement was mandatory for proving and establishing the fact of any inspection being made by the inspector on 12.11.1998 and this legal lacuna was well discussed by the Industrial Tribunal and its adjudication of the industrial dispute and other ancillary matters have also been dealt with fairly.
Consequently, no infirmity is perceptible in the order impugned dated 22.10.2008 passed by the Industrial Tribunal (Pratham), Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad and no interference is required to be made by this Court.
Accordingly, this petition lacks merit and the same is dismissed.
Let a copy of this order be certified to the tribunal concerned.
Cost easy.
Order Date :- 20.1.2021 S Rawat