Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 821 (UTT)

MAHESH CHANDRA DALAKOTI v. MANAGING DIRECTOR

2013-12-23

ALOK SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Present petition is filed assailing the order dated 08.05.2009 whereby services of the petitioner were terminated; order dated 26.11.2009 whereby departmental appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and order dated 05.07.2010 whereby statutory revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 2. Petitioner was working as Conductor with Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and on 22.10.2008, he was on duty in Bus No. UA 07 9811 enroute from Almora to Bageshwar. Mr. Anil Kumar Saini, Traffic Superintendent, at about 05.45 p.m. stopped bus for surprise checking and on surprise checking, 14 passengers were found travelling in the Bus and out of 14, 9 passengers were found without tickets. Surprise checking was done near Kasar Devi. Petitioner was found drunken while on duty. He was also found carrying 500 kg of goods without tickets. Petitioner was charge-sheeted on 11.11.2008 and was asked to file reply to the show cause notice. 3. Petitioner submitted his reply to the effect that 9 passengers, who were found without tickets in the Bus, had boarded the Bus just before Kasar Devi and before the petitioner could issue tickets to them Bus was stopped for surprise checking. It was further stated that petitioner was not under the influence of liquor and 200 kg. of goods was booked by him and 500 kg. of goods has wrongly been shown. 4. Assistant General Manager was appointed as Inquiry Officer. Having examined the entire material placed before him, he vide report dated 09.04.2009 found the charges proved against the petitioner. 5. On being asked, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that inquiry report was sent to the petitioner and after considering the explanation of the petitioner, impugned order terminating the services of petitioner was passed. 6. It is settled position of law that this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ordinarily, shall not disturb the finding of facts recorded by the Disciplinary Authorities and findings of facts can only be interfered with only when the same, on the face of it, are found to be perverse and without any evidence. 7. There seems to be no material or explanation to say as to why Mr. Anil Kumar Saini, Traffic Superintendent, would have falsely implicated the petitioner. 7. There seems to be no material or explanation to say as to why Mr. Anil Kumar Saini, Traffic Superintendent, would have falsely implicated the petitioner. In view of the case of the petitioner that all the 9 passengers were found travelling without ticket, as they had boarded the Bus just before surprise checking, goes to prove that at the time of checking, 9 passengers were found travelling without tickets. Consumption of alcohol, while on duty, is another misconduct justifying the dismissal from service. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had only one year to retire and therefore, punishment of terminating his services is on higher side, therefore, this Court must take lenient view and show sympathy. 9. Hon’ble Apex Court in a recent judgment reported in 2013 (10) SCC 106 (Deputy Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan Vs. J. Hussain) has held that if misconduct is proved, sympathy has no role to play. 10. In view of the above, I do not find any justification or reason to interfere with the impugned orders. Consequently, petition fails and is dismissed. 11. CLMA No. 12707 of 2011 stands disposed of.