JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—The case is taken in the revised list. Counsel for the parties are present. No rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner inspite of time having been granted. Since the case is listed peremptorily today, it is being heard and determined. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner joined the service of the respondent corporation in 1979 and was working as a bus conductor. He was suspended on 10.10.1993 for unauthorisedly and forcibly assuming charge of the passenger bus and issued tickets on 5.10.1993. He was, thereafter, awarded punishment of removal/dismissal from service on 5.2.1994 passed by the Regional Manager U.P.S.R.T.C, Allahabad. 3. Aggrieved by the order of removal/dismissal from service, the petitioner filed a writ petition No. 28533 of 1996 before this Court, which was allowed by judgment dated 19.3.1998 directing the respondents to conduct a fresh enquiry regarding the misconduct in accordance with law in the light of the observations contained in the ‘body of the judgment. It was left open to the Corporation to consider and pass a speaking order as to whether the petitioner should be reinstated during the pendency of enquiry proceedings or not. As regards payment of back wages, salary and other service benefits were concerned, it was directed that the same would depend upon the ultimate result of the enquiry. 4. The relevant extract of the Judgment and order dated 19.3.1998 is as under : “The petitioner should be given an opportunity to participate in the proceedings and if the corporation on fresh enquiry finds that actually the petitioner was guilty suitable punishment may be given to him but it cannot be said here in this Court that the petitioner was innocent and he should be out right exonerated. The only remedy which remains open to the petitioner is that he should face both the enquiries and charges against him. He may challenge the charges and may contest the charges levelled against him but in this petition he cannot be said to not guilty or innocent. The writ petition is hereby allowed. The enquiry report dated 24.11.1993 and 13.12.1993 and the consequent punishment orders dated 5.2.1994 are hereby set aside. Consequently the appellate order dated 31.7.1995 and the revisional order dated 5.12.1995 are also hereby quashed. The writ petition is hereby allowed. The enquiry report dated 24.11.1993 and 13.12.1993 and the consequent punishment orders dated 5.2.1994 are hereby set aside. Consequently the appellate order dated 31.7.1995 and the revisional order dated 5.12.1995 are also hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to conduct a fresh enquiry regarding both the misconducts in accordance with law and also the observations as contained in the body of the judgment. It shall remain open to the Corporation to consider and pass a speaking order whether the petitioner should be reinstated during the enquiry or not. As regards the payment of back wages and salary and other service benefits shall as depend upon the ultimate result of the enquiry. However, there is no direction of this Court whether the petitioner should be reinstated and given back wages and salary etc. of the earlier period or not. It is upto the Corporation to pass suitable orders according to their won description.” 5. The Counsel for the petitioner has referred to order of the Regional Manager dated 1.11.2004 appended as Annexure-10 to the writ petition and submits that the petitioner had not misbehaved with any person. He was on duty on that date and was directed by his superior officer to conduct a spare bus No. 9994 at 9.30 A.M. The action of the petitioner to insist for conducting the bus was neither unauthorized nor he was forcibly wanted to do the duty of conductor. It is urged that from Annexure-10, it is evident that the petitioner was working as conductor in pursuance of lawful orders of superior officers, as the staff of the spare bus has not come on duty till their reporting time at 9.00 A.M. 6. The Counsel for the petitioner submits that it is evident from the order of the Regional Manager that the petitioner was on duty on bus No. 9994 and that insisting to do duty was not a misconduct of a very serious nature and as such punishment of removal/dismissal from service awarded to him was highly disproportionate to the charge and was liable to be interfered with. It is stated that the Regional Manager after considering the facts and circumstances ordered for reinstatement of the petitioner and substituted the punishment of removal/dismissal from service to punishment of stoppage of three increments without future effect and would also not be entitled to wages of the suspension period. It is stated that the Regional Manager after considering the facts and circumstances ordered for reinstatement of the petitioner and substituted the punishment of removal/dismissal from service to punishment of stoppage of three increments without future effect and would also not be entitled to wages of the suspension period. 7. It is stated that the Regional Manager after considering the facts and circumstances ordered for reinstatement of the petitioner and substituted the punishment of removal/dismissal from service to punishment of stoppage of three increments without future effect and would also not be entitled to wages of the suspension period. 7. The relevant extract of the order dated 1.11.2004 is as under : Þokgu la[;k 9994 le; 9-30@10-30 cts cgjkbZp ekxZ ij Jh vksadkj ukFk ik.Ms; dh M~;wVh yxh FkhA bl izdkj Jh nqcs }kjk dh xbZ fjiksVZ =qfViw.kZ gSA blds vfrfjDr iwoZ tk¡p dk;Zokgh ds njE;ku Jh nqcs fjiksVZdrkZ us ;g Li’V fd;k gS fd vkjksih dh M~;wVh fnukad 5-10-93 dks le; 9 cts ls Lis;j esa yxkbZ xbZ Fkh] tcfd fjiksVZ esa ;g vkjksih dh M~;wVh dfFkr fnol dks ;k=h lgk;rk gsrq yxkbZ x;h FkhA Jh nqcs us Hkh ;g Hkh Li’V fd;k gS fd vkjksih }kjk muds lkFk vHknz O;ogkj ugha fd;k x;k FkkA ek= cl ysdj tkus dh ftn~n dj jgs Fks rFkk vkjksih dks fdlh vU; vf/kdkjh }kjk fVdV cSx ysus ds fy, funsZf”kr fd;k x;k gksxkA blls Li’V gS fd vkjksih dh M~;wVh le; 9 cts ls Lis;j esa yxh Fkh vkSj vksadkj ukFk ifjpkyd ftudh M~;wVh okgu la[;k 9994 le; 9-30 cts yxh Fkh ds u vkus ij LVs”ku ij dk;Zjr fdlh ds u vkus ij LVs”ku ij dk;Zjr fdlh vf/kdkjh@mif/kdkjh }kjk vkjksih dh mDr lsok ij tkus dk funsZ”k fn;k x;k gksxk] ftlds vuqikyu esa vkjksih fVdV cSx ysdj okgu esa tkdj fVdV cuk jgk Fkk vkSj Jh nqcs ds euk djus ij okgu ys tkus dh ftn djus yxk] fdUrq Jh vksadkj ukFk ifjpkyd ds vk tkus ij vkjksih us mDr lsok ij ugha x;k vkSj fVdV cSx yxkdj fn;k] ysfdu vkns”k dk vuqikyu u djuk vHknzrk dh Js.kh esa vkrk gS] ftlds fy, vkjksih us nks’kh ik;k tkrk gS] fQj Hkh vkjksi brus xaHkhj fdLe dk ugha gS fd mDr izLrkfor n.M ikfjr fd;k tk,,slh fLFkfr esa dkj.k crkvks uksfVl esa izLrkfor n.M vR;kf/kd dBksj gS] ftls fkfFky fd;k tkuk mfpr gSA vr,o dkj.k crkvksa uksfVl esa izLrkfor n.M dks f”kfFky djrs gq, fuyEcu vo”ks’k osru HkÙkk tCr djrs gq, vkjksih Jh lqjs[k pUnz frokjh ifjpkyd@xzkeh.k@fMiks dks lsok esa vafre :i ls cgky fd;k tkrk gS,oa n.M Lo:i 03 ¼rhu½ o’kZ dh okf’kZd osruo`f) fcuk Hkkoh izHkko ds jksdh tkrh gSA izdj.k esa vkjksih Jh frokjh ifjpkyd ftrus vof/k lsok ls jgs ml vof/k dk dksbZ osru vkfn ns; ugha gksxk] fdUrq lsok dh rkj rE;rk cuh jgsxhA rnuqlkj izdj.k fuLrkfjr fd;k tkrk gSA viBuh; gLrk{kj ¼vkj0,l0 “kqDyk½ {ks=h; izca/kdß 8. The petitioner was reinstated in service. He also filed appeal against the order dated 1.11.2004 before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority by the impugned order dated 5.5.2005 has rejected the appeal inter alia stating that he has seen the records and has come to conclusion that the order dated 1.11.2004 passed by the Regional Manager recommending stoppage of annual wages for three years and non payment of wages of the suspension period is in accordance with law and does not require any modification. 9. It appears from record that the petitioner was directed to conduct spare bus No. 9994 and distribute the tickets to the passengers on the said bus, as the staff of the said bus had not reported for duty by the reporting time. In the meantime one Mr. Dubey, Senior Station Incharge stopped him from issuing tickets, the petitioner insisted on doing his work. The conduct of the petitioner was construed as gross misconduct resulting in departmental enquiry and culminating in punishment of dismissal/removal of his service. The petitioner challenged the validity and correctness of the order in writ petition No. 28533 of 1996. The findings in the enquiry report are incorrect and it has been clarified by Sri Dubey that the petitioner had not misbehaved with him, he was only insisting to be allowed to conduct the bus, which was disposed of by order dated 19.3.1998 as stated above. 10. It appears from the order of the Appellate Authority that the order has been passed by him on the basis of earlier enquiry and no fresh enquiry has been conducted in the matter as directed by this Court in writ petition No. 28533 of 1996. As such, the petitioner was reinstated, but the judgment of this Court dated 19.3.1998 has not been complied by the respondent Corporation in letter and spirit. 11. The matter is quite old and the petitioner has already suffered a lot since 1993 and in the circumstances, this Court is not of the view that it should be relegated again for fresh enquiry. It is evident from record that to insist to do his duty is not a misconduct even enumerated in the standing orders. The workman had admittedly not misbehaved with the Station Incharge Sri Dubey, which is apparent from the statement of Sri Dubey, whose orders were said to have not been obeyed by the petitioner. It is evident from record that to insist to do his duty is not a misconduct even enumerated in the standing orders. The workman had admittedly not misbehaved with the Station Incharge Sri Dubey, which is apparent from the statement of Sri Dubey, whose orders were said to have not been obeyed by the petitioner. The workman was put on duty on the spare bus by superior officer, which was to leave by 9.30 A.M. as the conductor of that bus, Sri Onkarnath had not reported for duty by 9 A.M., It is evident from record that the petitioner deposited the tickets and the bag when Sri Onkarnath reported for duty. All this shows that the petitioner had to suffer and undergo enquiry and punishment only for satisfying the ego of the Station Incharge. The Appellate Authority has applied its mind and had mechanically upheld the punishment. Since the respondents have also not complied with directions of this Court dated 19.3.1998 for deciding the matter afresh after conducting denovo enquiry. The wages of the petitioner for suspension period have also not been paid to him for last 14 years and his 3 increments have also been stopped. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the punishment awarded to the petitioner is too harsh, which shocked the conscience of the Court. 12. The petitioner has suffered for his conduct and also h ad to come twice to this Court. Admittedly the petitioner has not committed any misconduct much less grave or serious misconduct but for alleged disobediance of lawful order of Station Incharge for not conducting the bus, the order of the Appellate Authority is modified to the extent that harassment already undergone by the petitioner is sufficient punishment for ignoring the orders the Station Incharge. 13. As a result, the petition is partly allowed. The petitioner shall be paid all his wages for the suspension period with 9% interest as well as his annual increments since the date of their stoppage within a month from today. Petition Partly Allowed. ———