Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2492 (ALL)

Mohd. Ayub Khan v. U. P. S. R. T. C. Ltd.

2019-11-06

SUDHIR AGARWAL

body2019
JUDGMENT : Sudhir Agarwal, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed by petitioner Mohd. Ayub Khan praying for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash order dated 30.4.2002 (Annexure 9 to the writ petition) passed by Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to "RM.UPSRTC") imposing punishment of recovery of Rs. 1,40,876/- and denial of full salary paid during period of suspension except amount of subsistence allowance, already paid and order dated 11.10.2006 (Annexure 15 to the writ petition) passed by Managing Director, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "MD, UPSRTC") dismissing petitioner's appeal. 2. The facts in brief giving rise to present writ petition are that petitioner was appointed as Senior Clerk in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "UPSRTC") and posted at Civil Lines, Allahabad Depot. He was placed under suspension vide order dated 9.10.2001 (Annexure 1) in a contemplated disciplinary proceeding. A preliminary inquiry was conducted and in the report dated 20.9.2001, four persons including petitioner were held prima facie responsible. Consequently, a charge-sheet dated 29.10.2001 was issued by RM, UPSRTC leveling following six charges upon petitioner: 3. Disciplinary Authority referred to only preliminary inquiry report dated 20.9.2001 as evidence sought to be relied in support of charges. Petitioner submitted reply and denied all the charges. Thereafter, Enquiry Officer submitted report (Annexure 7 to writ petition) holding all the charges proved. Agreeing with inquiry report, disciplinary authority i.e. RM, UPSRTC supplied copy of inquiry report to petitioner vide letter dated 1.4.2002 and directed to give his explanation, if any, and also to show-cause why penalty of 'Removal' from service, denial of full salary during period of suspension and recovery of Rs. 1,40,876/- be not imposed upon petitioner. 4. Petitioner submitted reply to show-cause notice. Thereafter order of punishment was passed on 30.4.2002 whereby disciplinary authority i.e. RM, UPSRTC confined punishment only to the extent of recovery of Rs. 1,40,876/- and denial of full salary during period of suspension except subsistence allowance, already paid. Petitioner preferred appeal but the same has been rejected vide order dated 11.10.2006. 5. I have heard Sri S.K. Chaubey, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Sunil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for respondents and perused the record. 6. 1,40,876/- and denial of full salary during period of suspension except subsistence allowance, already paid. Petitioner preferred appeal but the same has been rejected vide order dated 11.10.2006. 5. I have heard Sri S.K. Chaubey, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Sunil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for respondents and perused the record. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that enquiry report is wholly non-speaking and unreasoned one, inasmuch as, six charges were levelled against petitioner but Enquiry Officer has not discussed individual charges, evidences relied in support thereof as also petitioner's defence and instead, in a surreptitious and abrupt manner, all the charges have been held proved. 7. Learned counsel appearing for UPSRTC though sought to support orders impugned in present writ petition but when questioned, find it difficult to show as to how Enquiry Officer has found each charge proved and also could not show as to what evidence was relied to hold all the said charges proved. 8. Entire findings in respect of six charges recorded by Enquiry Officer read as under: 9. First charge levelled against petitioner is that he is responsible for missing Way Bills No. 8488051 to 8488100 after receiving Way Bill No. 8488001 to 8488500 from Depot Ticket Store. The third charge state that by causing loss to aforesaid Way Bills, he has caused loss to UPSRTC to the extent of Rs. 5,63,504. Charges 1 and 3 are connected with each other and basically state that petitioner is responsible for disappearance of 50 tickets and thereby caused loss of Rs. 5,63,504/- to UPSRTC. Annexure 5 to writ petition i.e. Issue Slip of Tickets dated 9.5.2001 shows that aforesaid Way Bills No. 8488001 to 8488500 were in ten pads. Ali Ahmad Naqvi, Senior Clerk, as per department, opened pads and found one pad missing in the bundle of 10 pads. Entire enquiry report nowhere shows that all the ten pads were made to receive to petitioner and thereafter he lost one pad containing Way Bills No. 8488051 to 8488100. No witness was examined to prove aforesaid charge; no document is referred to in enquiry report to prove the same and even in respect of alleged loss, I do not find any evidence as to how loss was computed and has been proved to be suffered by UPSRTC. No witness was examined to prove aforesaid charge; no document is referred to in enquiry report to prove the same and even in respect of alleged loss, I do not find any evidence as to how loss was computed and has been proved to be suffered by UPSRTC. It is not even a charge that those tickets were actually issued for travel but no revenue come to be deposited with UPSRTC causing actual loss. Findings in respect of charges 1 and 3 are based on no evidence whatsoever, hence cannot be sustained. 10. Now charge No. 2 also relates to alleged loss of one pad of Way Bills and thereafter giving wrong information. Here also I do not find any evidence whatsoever discussed by Enquiry Officer to prove that petitioner has given any false information to anyone. In fact charges 2 and 3 have not at all been discussed by Enquiry Officer and there is no finding in respect thereof. 11. Now coining to charges 4, 5 and 6. I find that there is no discussion, nothing has been statedly Enquiry Officer and without recording any (finding, Enquiry Officer has held all the charges proved. Unfortunately, similar error has been committed by Disciplinary Authority as well as/Appellate Authority. I do not find anything to show as to what material of evidence has been (examined by them and in what manner. In fact inquiry report is wholly unreasoned and non-speaking and so are the orders of disciplinary and appellate authorities to hold all the charges proved. 12. It is well established in law that an inquiry report which is non-speaking, if has not discussed evidence and material before it and simply recorded its conclusions, it is no inquiry report in the eyes of law and is vitiated. 13. In Anil Kumar v. Presiding Officer and to/hers, AIR 1985 SC 1121 , Court set aside an inquiry report which did not contain discussion of evidence and material on record as also the stand taken by both the parties and simply recorded its conclusion. 14. 13. In Anil Kumar v. Presiding Officer and to/hers, AIR 1985 SC 1121 , Court set aside an inquiry report which did not contain discussion of evidence and material on record as also the stand taken by both the parties and simply recorded its conclusion. 14. Relying on the aforesaid decision in Anil Kumar (supra), a Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 1196 of 1999 (Committee of Management v. Abdul Cadeer @ Abdul Qadir and Others) decided on 14.7.2006, while setting aside a similar inquiry report said; "In the instant case, as noticed above, like inquiry officer has not said anything as to what was the material or evidence on record on which her applied his mind and thereupon reached to the conclusion that the (Charges stand proved. It is true that in the matter of departmental proceeding scope of judicial review is limited and the only thing to be seen is as to whether there is any error in the decision making process or there is denial of adequate opportunity to the delinquent in defending the charges or there is any violation of substantive provision of law but this Court will reappraise the evidence and sit on appeal over the order passed by the departmental authority but it has to be seen whether finding or conclusion is based on some evidence or not. This Court can interfere where it is found that proceeding is conducted in violation of principle of natural justice or of statutory rules prescribing the mode for holding enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the Inquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence or where the conclusion or finding is such that no prudent person would have ever reached the same. As noticed above, it does not appear from the report of the inquiry officer that any record or evidence was brought before him by the department in support of the charges on the basis of which he has found him guilty of the charges. He has held the petitioner-respondent No. 1 guilty only on the ground that he did not appear before him despite notice and, therefore, the charges stand proved. This, in fact, is no inquiry in the eye of law and, therefore, the order of dismissal based on such inquiry report cannot sustain and has to be quashed." (Emphasis added) 15. He has held the petitioner-respondent No. 1 guilty only on the ground that he did not appear before him despite notice and, therefore, the charges stand proved. This, in fact, is no inquiry in the eye of law and, therefore, the order of dismissal based on such inquiry report cannot sustain and has to be quashed." (Emphasis added) 15. This view has been followed and reiterated by another Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 533 of 2004 (Chandra Pal Singh and others v. Managing Director, U.P. Co-operative Federation and others) decided on 12.10.2006. 16. In the present case, since petitioner has been held guilty of all the six charges without showing any evidence and without any discussion, entire proceedings are vitiated in law. 17. In the result, writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders dated 30.4.2002 (Annexure 9 to the writ petition) and 11.10.2006 (Annexure 15 to the writ petition) are hereby set aside. Petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. However, this judgment shall not prevent competent authority to proceed afresh after the stage of reply to charge-sheet if it so decide, in accordance with law.