Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 936 (ALL)

Bachau Ram v. State of U. P.

2004-04-28

VINEET SARAN

body2004
JUDGMENT Vineet Saran, J.—The petitioner was appointed in the year 1959 as a Bus Conductor on temporary basis with the U. P. Government Roadways (now U. P. State Road Transport Corporation). On 15.4.1987, while the petitioner was taking the Bus No. 415 as its Conductor, in a surprise check by the Traffic Inspector it was found that 10 passengers were travelling without tickets. The Traffic Inspector realized the fare and penalty from such passengers. Thereafter again on 25.4.1987 when the petitioner was deputed as Bus Conductor on another Bus on Varanasi-Jamania route, the checking authorities found that 22 passengers were travelling without tickets. Thereafter on 30.4.1987, the Regional Manager of the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation issued a charge-sheet to the petitioner to which a reply was submitted on 7.5.1987. The enquiry report was submitted on 14.9.1987. On 16.9.1987, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to which a reply was filed on 24.10.1987. The Regional Manager, after considering the enquiry report as well as the reply to the show cause notice submitted by the petitioner, passed an order dated 4.12.1987, for removal of the petitioner from service on the ground of corruption and misconduct having been committed by him. The petitioner filed an appeal against the aforesaid order which was also dismissed by the Zonal Manager, U. P. State Road Transport Corporation vide its order dated 15.3.1988. Although no such second appeal was provided under the relevant Act and the Rules, the petitioner thereafter filed a representation against the aforesaid orders dated 4.12.1987 and 15.3.1988 to the Minister of Transport, Government of U. P. By order dated 17.6.1992, passed by the General Manager of the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation, the said representation was rejected as not maintainable. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dated 4.12.1987, 15.3.1988 and 17.6.1992 passed by the respondent-authorities, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2. I have heard Sri V. K. Rai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Sri Sameer Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the record. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that neither was the enquiry conducted properly nor was the reply of the petitioner to the show cause notice considered by the Regional Manager, before passing of the impugned order dated 4.12.1987. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that neither was the enquiry conducted properly nor was the reply of the petitioner to the show cause notice considered by the Regional Manager, before passing of the impugned order dated 4.12.1987. It has been contended that the explanation of the petitioner was a valid one which ought to have been accepted, as after the passengers boarded the bus, on being asked, they refused to pay the fare. It has also been submitted that with regard to the second incident on 25.4.1987, when 22 passengers had been found to be travelling without tickets, the disciplinary authority himself had found the same to be doubtful and exonerated the petitioner of the said charges. It has thus been urged that the petitioner ought to have been given similar concession with regard to the first incident also which took place on 15.4.1987. In the alternative, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the charges against the petitioner were not so grave as to call for penalty of removal from service, and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, a lenient view ought to have been taken in the matter and a lesser punishment should have been imposed. 4. In reply Sri Sameer Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has firstly submitted that the writ petition itself should be dismissed on the ground of laches as it has been filed nearly 4 years after the passing of the impugned appellate order. In this regard it has been contended that the explanation for the delay of 4 years in filing this writ petition as given by the petitioner that the representation was pending before the Transport Minister ought not to be accepted, as at that time there was no such remedy provided under the law for making such representation. On merits, it has been urged that the punishment had been imposed on the petitioner after considering all the relevant materials on record and the same was fully justified. Sri Sharma submitted, that considering the fact that the petitioner was a habitual offender, as in the past also on more than a dozen occasions the petitioner had been charged on similar grounds and had also been imposed punishment, the petitioner would not be entitled to any concession or leniency. Sri Sharma submitted, that considering the fact that the petitioner was a habitual offender, as in the past also on more than a dozen occasions the petitioner had been charged on similar grounds and had also been imposed punishment, the petitioner would not be entitled to any concession or leniency. Details of the earlier charges and disciplinary proceedings which had taken place in the case of the petitioner have been given in Paragraph 3A of the counter-affidavit. On two earlier occasions the petitioner was dismissed from service on the ground of corruption, and taking a lenient view, the appellant authority set aside the orders of dismissal and imposed lesser punishment. On some other occasions the petitioner had been warned. From the record it is clear that at least on 7 to 8 earlier occasions the petitioner had been found carrying passengers without tickets, besides the two occasions on the charges of which he has been punished in the present case. Sri Sharma has further urged that the rule of pay and board is applicable in this case as the conductors of buses are required to first issue the tickets and then permit the passengers to board the bus. This rule has been provided for and is to be strictly followed, for the reason that the fare is the only source of income of the respondent-Corporation and in case if there is any laxity in the realization of the same and passengers are permitted to travel without paying the fare, the same would cause irreparable loss to the respondent-Corporation which is already facing financial crisis. The rule of pay and board has also been accepted by a Division Bench of this Court in W. P. No. 9102 of 1980, Sri Krishna Sharma v. U. P. State Road Transport Corporation. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case I do not find any cogent ground for interference with the impugned orders and this writ petition is thus, liable to be dismissed. From the record it is clear that the petitioner is a habitual offender and had been charged of corruption and also punished on more than a dozen occasions earlier. The burden of proof of showing that the petitioner was innocent was on the petitioner himself. Admittedly the petitioner was found carrying passengers without having issued tickets to them. From the record it is clear that the petitioner is a habitual offender and had been charged of corruption and also punished on more than a dozen occasions earlier. The burden of proof of showing that the petitioner was innocent was on the petitioner himself. Admittedly the petitioner was found carrying passengers without having issued tickets to them. The amount of money which was to be realized from the ticket is not the sole material consideration and it is the conduct of the petitioner which has to be seen. It is only in the surprise checking that the Conductors of the Buses can be caught carrying passengers without tickets. Had it been the solitary case in which the petitioner had been found guilty of misconduct and involved in corruption, then lenient view could have been taken in the matter, but since the petitioner had been involved in several such cases in the past, and had also been imposed punishment for such misconduct, in my view the punishment of removal from service having been imposed in the present case when it was found that he was guilty of misconduct, does not appear to be unjustified. 6. Further this writ petition has been filed nearly 4 years after passing of the appellate order and the explanation given in the writ petition for the delay in approaching this Court also does not appear to be justified. The Apex Court in the case of Jagdish Narain Maltiar v. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1973 SC 1343 , has held that “for nearly 3 years after the decision in the appeal the employee kept on submitting one memorandum after another to the Government and it was not until late in 1966 that he filed a writ petition in the High Court to challenge the order of removal. The memorials presented by him to the Government were in the nature of mercy petitions and he should have realised that in pursuing a remedy which was not duly appointed under the law he was putting in peril a right of high value and significance." Following the said principle of law, in the present case also when there is no such remedy of filing a representation provided for under the Rules/Regulations applicable in the case of the petitioner at the relevant time, the delay in filing this writ petition after 4 years of passing of the appellate order cannot be justified. As such, in my view, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of laches also. 7. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.