MOTI LAL v. STATE OF U P — 1999 DIGILAW 1529 (ALL)

DEV KANT TRIVEDI, J. The present petition is directed against the order dated 30th March, 1991 whereby the petitioner was removed from service. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Bus-Conductor on 1st June, 1976. On 9th July, 1988 he was on duty and was proceed ing from Fatehpur to Etawah on Bus No. UGG 108. The Bus in question was check ed by the Assistant Regional Manager, U. P. S. R. T. C. and 16 passengers were found without ticket. The petitioner was suspended from service. Charge-sheet was served on 16th August, 1988. Reply was submitted on 22nd October, 1988. The suspension was revoked on 24th October, 1988. On 30th March, 1991 the petitioner was removed from service. The appeal filed against the said order of removal was dismissed on 23rd June, 1991. 3. The petitioner claims that 16 pas sengers which were found to be without ticket, caused a loss of Rs. 16 only as the fare from Bindki to Khajuha was only Re. 1 per head. Thus, the petitioner claimed that the punishment of removal was not com mensurate with the misconduct. The petitioner denied that any forged tickets were recovered from his possession. It is also alleged that the Enquiry Officer did not record the statement of any of the 16 passengers found without ticket and had given wrong total. The enquiry according to the petitioner was not legally held and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement in the service. 4. Opposite parties contested the petition wherein it was stated that 16 pas sengers were in fact found to be travelling in the bus without ticket and, therefore, enquiry was instituted, the petitioner was suspended, charge-sheet was served and that after enquiry the petitioner was removed from service. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Assistant Regional Manager (Per sonnel) accompanied by Assistant Traffic Inspectors Sri C. H. Verma and Sri I. D. Bajpai made a surprise checking of the Bus No. UGG 108 on 9th July, 1988 at 9. 35 when the bus was reaching Khajuha. It was found by the checking party that 16 pas sengers were found travelling without ticket. The fare from the ticketless travellers had already been realised by the petitioner bat tickets were not given to them. 35 when the bus was reaching Khajuha. It was found by the checking party that 16 pas sengers were found travelling without ticket. The fare from the ticketless travellers had already been realised by the petitioner bat tickets were not given to them. Since the fare was paid by the ticket-less travellers, they were issued the tickets by the raiding party from SI. No. 5780806 to 5780821. The petitioner had she ticket No. 584 to a passenger from Bindki to Jahanabad. From the search of the petitioners bag ticket Nos. 3287584 to ticket No. 8080345 were recovered. Several other tickets of the denomination of Rs. 1, 50 paisa, Rs. 5 and Rs. 10 were also recovered from the petitioner. On the surprise checking of the bus, charge-sheet dated 16th August, 1988 was served on the Conductor. The charges against the petitioner were that he was carrying 16 ticketless travellers from Bindki to Khajuha, though the money was realised from ticketless travellers, the tickets were not issued though the bus was about to reach Khajuha, that the petitioner tried to embezzel the departmental money to his use, that the petitioner tried to give tickets to the ticketless travellers in a hurry when the bus was being checked, that basic and communation tickets were found in un authorised possession of the petitioner, that the petitioner was found in possession of old tickets with him which he wanted to re-use, that the petitioner was using cor rupt means in discharge of duty, that the petitioner failed to work in the interest of the employer and that he was flouting the code of conduct. 7. The petitioner admitted the surprise checking of the bus near Khajuha by the Assistant Regional Manager (Per sonnel ). According to him there was no ticketless passenger in the bus. The petitioner also denied that any old or forged tickets were recovered from his possession. 8. The enquiry of this case was con -. ducted by Sri V. C. Jain, retired District Judge, who afforded ample opportunity to the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer found ali the charges proved, on the basis whereof a show-cause notice was given to the petitioner. Thereafter the order of removal from service was passed on 30th March, 1991. 9. 8. The enquiry of this case was con -. ducted by Sri V. C. Jain, retired District Judge, who afforded ample opportunity to the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer found ali the charges proved, on the basis whereof a show-cause notice was given to the petitioner. Thereafter the order of removal from service was passed on 30th March, 1991. 9. It has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that the driver was not ex amined before the Enquiring Officer and, therefore, it should be held that the En quiry Officer did not provide sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself and that non-examination of the driver amounts to a serious irregularity in the conducting of the disciplinary proceedings. It may he seen that the driver was not referred to as a witness when the charge-sheet was served on the petitioner, nor he could have been a witness whether the passengers were without ticket. Even otherwise the driver was not a necessary witness for the employer particularly when the Assistant Regional Manager along with two; Traffic Inspectors had themselves seen that the 16 passengers were without ticket. It was open to the petitioner to examine the driver in support of his defence. The mere omission to ex amine the driver in support of the charge cannot be deemed to be a sufficient cause for discarding tie statements of the other witnesses or to Discard the enquiry report. 10. It has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that - examination of ticket-less passengers I has vitiated the enquiry. Reliance in this Iregard has been placed on Khem Chand v. the State of Rajasthan and others, reported in 1985 (1) S. L. R. 533. The facts of the present case are quite different from the facts of the case under the authority. In the present case before me the charge is not only non-issuance of ticket to the passengers but is also to the effect that the petitioner was found in pos session of old and used tickets. There was no occasion for the petitioner to carry those tickets with him. In the present case before me the charge is not only non-issuance of ticket to the passengers but is also to the effect that the petitioner was found in pos session of old and used tickets. There was no occasion for the petitioner to carry those tickets with him. In the present case the petitioner has been given an adequate opportunity and the statements of the As sistant Regional Manager and the Traffic Inspectors were recorded as is admitted to the petitioner himself in his reply, An-nexure-6 wherein it is mentioned that the checking staff had given statements before the Enquiry Officer. 11. It was difficult rather impossible for the officials of the checking party to have recorded the names and addresses or the statements of the ticketless travellers who had to alight at Khajuha itself while the bus was checked when it was nearing Khajuha. In these peculiar circumstances the non-examination of the passengers does not give any benefit to the petitioner. The facts of the case under authority were quite different and that anyone travelling without ticket firstly will not depose against the Conductor and secondly there is no reason to disbelieve the checking staff. The statement of the petitioner in the present case is not of any importance, In as much as it could not be possible for him to explain as to how old and used tickets were found in his possession. The benefit of the authority in question is, therefore, not available to the petitioner and non- examination of the ticketless passengers cannot be a ground for setting aside the enquiry report. 12. It has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that the copies of the state ments of the witnesses recorded in preliminary enquiry and the copies of the documents proposed to be utilised indi cated in the charge-sheet were not sup plied to the petitioner. It may be seen that there is nothing on record to suggest that any preliminary enquiry was held or any statement was recorded in the preliminary enquiry. So far as the papers required to be utilised in the enquiry were concerned, it is specifically mentioned in the charge-sheet that the report of Assistant Regional Manager (Personnel) was to be utilised and a copy there of was enclosed with the charge-sheet. So far as the papers required to be utilised in the enquiry were concerned, it is specifically mentioned in the charge-sheet that the report of Assistant Regional Manager (Personnel) was to be utilised and a copy there of was enclosed with the charge-sheet. It was also mentioned in the charge- sheet that basic and communation tickets will be utilised against the petitioner in the enquiry and it was specifi cally directed that the petitioner may in spect the same in the office. Similarly, the way bill was required to be utilised against the petitioner as is mentioned in the charge- sheet and it is specifically men tioned that the petitioner could have in spected the same by attending the office. Thus, it cannot be said that the petitioner was denied opportunity of hearing. Reliance has been placed on State of U. P. v. Shatrughan Lal and another, 1998 (16) L. C. D. 1278; 1998 (2) LBESR 838 (SC ). The full compliance of the law laid down in the aforesaid authority has been made by the opposite-parties and it is evident that the papers indicated in the F. I. R. were either supplied or an opportunity was af forded to the petitioner to inspect the same. Thus, the benefit of the above authority is not available to the petitioner. 13. Reliance has been placed on As sistant Regional Manager U. P. S. R. T. C. and another v. State of UP. and others, in 1998 (16) L. C. D. 734; 1999 (1) LBESR 596 (All ). Disclosure of evidence sought to be relied upon in the enquiry has already been made in the charge-sheet, Annexure-2 and therefore, it cannot be said that the enquiry is vitiated on account of non-dis closure of evidence. The benefit of the authority in question is not available to the petitioner. 14. It has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that the oral. enquiry has not been made and in this regard reliance has been placed on AIR 1966 Supreme Court 269. The State of Bombay v. Nurul Latif Khan, wherein it is held that failure to hold an oral enquiry will vitiate the order of punishment. In the present case enquiry has been made by a retired District Judge and evidence has been recorded and an opportunity was afforded to the petitioner who himself also appeared in the enquiry. The State of Bombay v. Nurul Latif Khan, wherein it is held that failure to hold an oral enquiry will vitiate the order of punishment. In the present case enquiry has been made by a retired District Judge and evidence has been recorded and an opportunity was afforded to the petitioner who himself also appeared in the enquiry. Hence the benefit of above authority is also not available to the petitioner. 15. In the present case the report of the checking staff was proved by the of ficers who were the members of the check ing staff and, therefore, it cannot be said that fair opportunity was not granted to the petitioner to defend himself. 16. In the present case the report dated July 18, 1988 enclosed with the charge-sheet supported by two Assistant Traffic Inspectors and the Assistant Regional Manager was in itself sufficient to establish the charge that the petitioner was carrying 16 ticketless passengers. The recovery of old and used tickets from the possession of the petitioner was also fully established at the enquiry. In view of the enquiry report, it cannot be said that the charges were not found established against the petitioner. 17. It may be seen that the petitioner was found guilty of misconduct in a full-fledged enquiry conducted by a retired District Judge into the conduct of the petitioner and, therefore, the punishment awarded to the petitioner cannot be inter fered with. 18. There is nothing, on record to suggest that there has been any denial of fair opportunity to the petitioner. There is nothing on record to show that the report of the Assistant Regional Manager was in any way incorrect or false. In the cir cumstances, the petitioner as rightly removed from service and that there is no ground whatsoever to interfere with the said findings. 19. The petition has no force and the same deserves dismissal. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Costs on parties. Petition dismissed. .