JUDGMENT D.S. Sinha and O.P. Jain, JJ.
1. The petitioner, Vikrama Nand Uniyal, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing order Annexure 5, dated 9th October, 1979, by which he has been dismissed from the post of Conductor in the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter called the Corporation). The petitioner also prays for quashing of order Annexure 9, dated 25th January, 1984, by which U. P. Public Services Tribunal No. V, Lucknow dismissed his petition.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a Conductor on 1st June, 1966 in the State Transport Department of U. P. Roadways at Dehradun Depot and his appointing authority at that time was Assistant General Manager, Dehradun Region, in the year 1972. U. P. State Road Transport Corporation was established and the services of the petitioner were given on deputation to the Corporation. A departmental enquiry was held against the petitioner in which there were three main charges against him. It was alleged that on 15th March, 1978, the petitioner who was the conductor of Bus No. U.P.S. 9309 carried a scooter on the roof of the bus, but he did not realise the freight charges. The second charge was that on 31st March, 1978 he was the conductor of Bus No. U.P.S. 9112 and he was found carrying 24 passengers without ticket. The third charge against the petitioner was that as a conductor of Bus No. U.S.K. 8793 he carried some passengers on the roof of the bus, but did not issue proper tickets to them.
3. On these charges, a regular departmental enquiry was held by Sri Yogendra Kumar, Assistant Regional Manager (Traffic), who submitted his report. Annexure 3, dated 22nd May. 1979. The enquiry officer found that all the three charges framed against the petitioner were fully proved. After the submission of enquiry report, a show cause notice, Annexure 4 was issued to the petitioner along with a copy of the enquiry report and he was asked to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed. After personal hearing, the order of dismissal, Annexure 5, dated 9th October, 1979 was passed by Sri A. B. Pd. Jain, Assistant Regional Manager (T.R.). Being aggrieved against the order of dismissal, the petitioner filed a petition before U. P. Public Services Tribunal No. V, which was dismissed on 25th January, 1984, vide Annexure 9. Hence the present writ petition has been filed for quashing Annexure 5, dated 9th October, 1979 and Annexure 9 dated 25th January, 1984.
4. We have heard Sri S. N. Doval, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sameer Sharma, learned counsel representing respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 and Sri Vinay Malviya, learned standing counsel representing respondents No. 1 and 2.
5. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner having been appointed on 1st June, 1966 by the State of Uttar Pradesh, continued to remain a Government Servant and as such he was entitled to the benefit of Article 311 of the Constitution of India and he could not have been removed from service by an officer of the Corporation. In support of this contention, the learned counsel has relied on U. P. State Road Transport Corporation v. State of U. P., which is a Full Bench judgment of this Court and is reported in 1981 AWC 481. From a perusal of the authority, the following three points emerge :
(a) An officer of the Transport Corporation appointed by the Corporation after its creation cannot, dismiss or remove from service any of those Government employees who have been sent on deputation to serve in the Corporation.
(b) A Transport Corporation Officer who is himself not a Government servant and who has not been sent on deputation to the Corporation by the Government cannot inflict any punishment against any other Government servant sent on deputation to the Corporation either by way of dismissal or removal from service or reduction in rank.
(c) Such action can be taken by those Deputy General Managers, Assistant General Managers, Regional and Assistant Regional Managers of the Corporation, as the case may be, who are Government servants and who have also been sent to the Corporation on deputation and who had either actually appointed the delinquent employee in question or who were superior in rank or of the same rank or grade but who are not subordinate in rank or grade to the appointing officer.
6. This authority was followed in an unreported Division Bench case, Krishna Kumar v. State of U. P., Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8651 of 1987, decided on 12th May, 1989.
7. The Full Bench authority of this Court came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of Jai Jai Ram and others u. U. P. State Road Transport Corporation, Lucknow and others, AIR 1996 SC 2239. The view taken by this Court in the Full Bench case cited above was upheld.
8. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1966 when the Corporation had not come into existence and after the creation of the Corporation, the petitioner was on deputation with the Corporation. Therefore, he continued to remain a Government servant and was entitled to the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution of India.
9. According to the petitioner, his services were terminated by Sri Yogendra Kumar, who himself was not a Government servant and Joined the Corporation after its creation in the year 1972. It is alleged in paragraph 26 of the petition that Sri Yogendra Kumar, Assistant Regional Manager was appointed directly in the year 1978. According to the petitioner, Sri A. B. Pd. Jain simply communicated the order of dismissal.
10. This averment has been controverted in paragraph 27 of the counter-affidavit wherein it is stated that Sri Yogendra Kumar, Assistant Regional Manager, simply conducted the enquiry but he had not passed the order of dismissal. The order of removal has been passed by Sri Anant Beer Pd. Jain, Assistant Regional Manager who himself was a Government servant on deputation with the Corporation. Thus, according to Corporation, in view of the Full Bench decision cited above, Sri A. B. Pd. Jain was competent to pass the order of removal. It is further mentioned in the counter-affidavit that Sri A. B. Pd. Jain was originally a Traffic Superintendent in the erstwhile U. P. Government Roadways, but he was promoted as Assistant Regional Manager.
11. Petitioner's averment is factually wrong. The record shows that the order of removal, Annexure 5, has been signed by Sri A. B. Pd. Jain and not by Sri Yogendra Kumar. It is wrong to suggest that the order of removal was passed by Sri Yogendra Kumar and was only communicated by Sri A. B. Pd. Jain.
12. It is, therefore, found after a consideration of the pleadings that the petitioner was not removed from service by an officer of the Corporation appointed by the Corporation after its creation. Sri Yogendra Kumar was only an enquiry officer and the order of removal was passed by Sri A. B. Pd. Jain, who himself was an officer of the Government and was sent on deputation to the Corporation by the Government. Sri A. B. Pd. Jain was not subordinate in rank or grade to the appointing authority of the petitioner. The petitioner was appointed by the Assistant General Manager of the U. P. Roadways. It has been held in the unreported case of Krishna Kumar v. State of U. P. (supra) that the post of Assistant General Manager was redesignated as that of Assistant Regional Manager, vide Government Order 3291/E-19/ARM/75, dated 18th January, 1979. As a result thereof, the Assistant Regional Manager entered into the shoes of Assistant General Manager and acquired all the rights which the latter had. Therefore, it cannot be said that the present petitioner Vikrama Nand Uniyal was removed from service by someone who was inferior in rank to his appointing authority.
13. In view of the above discussion, this writ petition has no force and is hereby dismissed. Interim order, if any, shall stand vacated. There will be no order as to costs.