Jeewan Chandra Sanwal -------Writ v. State of Uttarakhand and others

Judgment

(per Subhash Upadhyay, J.) Present writ petition has been filed claiming the following reliefs: “(a) Call for the record of the case and issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing and setting aside the orders dated

06.07.2012, passed by the Public Service Tribunal, Uttarakhand (contained in Annexure No. 8), dismissing the claim petition dated 13.04.2010 passed by the Managing Director, UTC, Dehradun (contained in Annexure No. 7) dismissing the Second Appeal, dated 19.08.2008 passed by the Divisional Manager, UTC, Tanakpur (contained in Annexure No.

6) dismissing the First Appeal and dated 31.08.2007 1 passed Assistant General Manager, UTC Tanakpur (contained in Annexure No. 5) passing punishment order of dismissal of service of the petitioner. (b) Call for the record of the case and issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing and setting aside the charge-sheet dated

23.02.2004, show cause notice dated 07.10.2005, inquiry report and the whole departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner.”

2. Petitioner, who was working as a Conductor in Tanakpur Depot of Uttarakhand Transport Corporation was issued a charge-sheet on 23rd February, 2004 narrating the various instances wherein it was found that the passengers were not issued tickets by the petitioner. There were 13 such different instances when the bus was inspected by 9 different checking Officers and it was found that passengers were not issued tickets by petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet and after due inquiry conducted by the respondent, the charges were found proved against him and the petitioner was removed from service vide order dated 31 August, 2007, passed by the Assistant General Manager, UTC, Tanakpur. The appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Regional Manager, Uttarakhand Road Transport Corporation, Tanakpur was dismissed on 19th August, 2008 and the Revision preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Managing Director, Uttarakhand Transport Corporation on 2 13th April, 2010. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a Claim Petition No. 30/NB/2010 before the Public Service Tribunal at Nainital, which too was dismissed on 6th July, 2012. The petitioner has assailed the aforesaid orders in the present Writ Petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority Appellate Court, Reviewing authority, and the learned Public Service Tribunal are unsustainable as the Show Cause Notice was issued by the same authority who inflicted punishment upon the petitioner. He further submitted that in the show cause notice, it was mentioned that punishment of removal from service is to be imposed, therefore, asking the petitioner to give reply to that notice was an empty formality. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the learned Public Service Tribunal did not consider the fact that the Office Memorandum of the respondent no. 2 dated

12.03.2006 and 30.08.2007, was not adhered to, in which instructions for conducting an inquiry were issued, wherein it was specified that in case of travelling without ticket the statement of the passengers or at least the names and address of the passengers should be recorded. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that proper opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioner penalty imposed disproportionate to the charges leveled and the said aspect was also not considered by the Public 3 Service Tribunal.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 4 submits that the contention of the petitioner so far as it relates to the issuance of show cause notice and disciplinary proceedings being under taken by the same authority is concerned, the same is unfounded as the show Cause Notice was issued by the Assistant Regional Manager, Bhowali, whereas the punishment was imposed upon the petitioner by a different authority i.e. the Assistant General Manager, Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, Tanakpur. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 4 also drew the attention of the Court on para 5 of the counter affidavit filed by Assistant General Manager, (Legal), Uttarakhand Transport Corporation. The said paragraph no. 5 of the counter affidavit is being excerpted: “5. That the petitioner is habitual defaulter as he was found carrying passengers without ticket from time to time and he has been punished several times. Some of the punishment awarded to the petitioner are given as under:- (i) (ii) That vide order dated 30.9.1989 one year increment was stopped vide order dated 9.12.1991 three years increment stopped and vide order dated 2.4.1993 petitioner was suspended and vide order dated 22.4.1993 he was reverted in his for the original pay scale and salary suspension period was forfeited. That on 21.8.1996 passengers were permitted by the petitioner for traveling without ticket and punishment vide order dated 25.10.1996 and 18 months good 4 character allowances was respect of petitioner and adverse entry was also recorded in the service book. forfeited (iii) That on 18.9.1996 he was carrying 2 passengers without ticket and petitioner after due inquiry was punished vide order dated 28.9.1996 and given adverse entry in the service record. for carrying (iv) That petitioner was suspended from service and after due inquiry he was removed from service vide order dated 3.7.2001. The petitioner filed appeal against the removal order before the Regional Manager, Nainital and Regional Manager Nainital by his order dated 2.4.2002 reinstated the petitioner in service by giving opportunity to improve in the petitioner was his conduct. But habitual the passengers without ticket and petitioner was again found permitting the passengers without ticket and the petitioner was charge- sheeted on different charges on different dates and also submitted the charge sheet against him. The Additional Divisional Manager Almora conducted the inquiry and submitted the inquiry report after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner after submitting the inquiry report the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 7.10.2005. The punishing authority on the basis of inquiry report vide order dated 31.08.2007 removed the petitioner from service and forfeited the salary of petitioner during the suspension period.”

5. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 4 thus submits that the aforesaid fact stated in the counter affidavit, which has not been rebutted by the petitioner, depicts that the petitioner was habitual of carrying passengers without ticket and causing monetary loss to the Corporation by 5 misappropriation of fund.

6. It has further been contended by learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 4 that the learned Public Service Tribunal has considered the fact that reliance placed by the petitioner on the Office Memorandum issued by the Corporation in the year 2006-07 has no relevance in the present case as the incidents of ticketless travelling, on which charges were framed against the petitioner are related to the year 2003.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

8. The removal order passed by the Disciplinary authority as affirmed by the Appellate Authority, Revisional Authority and the Public Service Tribunal are based on correct appreciation of fact. The finding recorded by the learned Public Service Tribunal that the Office Memorandum dated

12.03.2006 and 30.08.2007 were not applicable in the case of petitioner; as the incident of ticketless travelling was of the year 2003; cannot be faulted. Moreover, the charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 23.04.2004 much prior to the Office Memorandum dated 12.03.2006 and 30.08.2007. The petitioner was provided full opportunity of hearing as the show cause notice was sent to him asking him to submit his reply against the enquiry report. Two witnesses were examined and the petitioner cross-examined them and submitted that 6 he do not want to cross-examine any other witness. Learned Public Service Tribunal has considered these aspects in detail. Scope of judicial review in such matter is limited and the finding recorded by the Public Service Tribunal cannot be disturbed as the same are based on correct appreciation of facts. The learned Public Service Tribunal has also recorded the finding that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is commensurate to the charge levelled against him. Law is well settled, that the disciplinary authority and the Appellate authority being fact finding authorities have exclusive power to appreciate the evidence and this Court cannot disturb the findings of fact while exercising power of judicial review. This Court would not interfere with the decision taken by the authority unless it was illegal or suffered from procedural impropriety or was irrational.

9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of V. Ramana vs. A.P.SRTC and Others, reported in (2005) 7 Supreme Court Cases 338 has held as follows: “4. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court should have considered the question of quantum of punishment by applying the principles of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short “the Act”). If was further submitted there were minor lapses and smallness of the amount has not been considered in the proper perspective and order of termination of service should not have been passed. Learned counsel the respondent 7 corporation supported the order of the Tribunal and judgment of the High Court. In Karnataka SRTC Vs. B.S. Hullikatti, it was held that misconduct in such cases were the Bus conductor either had not issued tickets to a large number of passengers or had issued tickets of lower denomination, punishment of removal is proper. It is the responsibility of the conductors to collect correct fare charges from the passengers and deposit the same with corporation. They Act in fiduciary capacity and it would be a case of gross misconduct if they do not collect any fare for the correct amount of fare. A conductor holds a post of trust. A person guilty of breach of trust should be imposed punishment of removal from service. The factual position shows that the appellant’s conduct in collecting fare at the designated place and not collecting fare from persons who had already travelled were in violation of various regulations contained in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Conduct) regulations, 1963 (in short “the Regulations”). In Karnataka State Road Transport Case it was held that it is misplaced sympathy by Courts awarding lesser punishments where on checking it is found that the Bus conductors have either not issued tickets to a large number of passengers, though they should have, or have issued tickets of a lower denomination knowing fully well the correct fare to be charged. It was finally held that the order of dismissal should not have been set aside. This view was reiterated by a three Judge Bench in Regional Manager, RSRTC Vs. Ghanshyam Sharma, where it was additionally observed that the proved acts amount either to a 8 case of dishonesty or gross negligence, and bus conductors who by their actions or inactions cause financial loss to the corporation are not fit to be retained in service.

5. The Principle was reiterated in Regional Manager, U.P. SRTC vs. Hoti Lal, 1985 AC 374.”

10. The said view was reiterated in the subsequent decision in the case of Uttarakhand State Road Transport Corporation vs. Sanjay Kumar Nautiyal, reported in 2008 (12) SCC 131 and further in Civil Appeal No. 2038 of 2018, UP State Road Transport Corporation vs. Gopal Shukla, decided on 10.09.2015.

11. Thus, we find no infirmity in the orders passed by Departmental authorities. The learned Public Service Tribunal has given cogent reasons for not interfering the orders passed by Departmental Authorities and we are not inclined to take a different view than the view taken by the Public Service Tribunal The Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) (Subhash Upadhyay, J.) Dated:10.06.2025 Kaushal 9