Basant Lal vs U.P.State Road Transport Corporation, Lucknow and others

Kamal Kishore, J.—The present writ petition is directed against the order of the Tribunal dismissing the claim petition. The petitioner was appointed as conductor in the year 1962 and was working as such in U.P. Government Roadways, was transferred to the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and all the employees working in the roadways were placed on deputation in the corporation.

On 9.8.1974 the petitioner who at the relevant time was conductor, was served with a chargesheet dated 12.8.1974. According to the charges, while the petitioner was working as conductor he did not allow the bus to be stopped when a signal was given by the Traffic Superintendent and Assistant Traffic Inspector, who submitted the report against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, during the course of the enquiry certain documents were not furnished to him inspite of the demand made by him. Even the copy of the report of Assistant Traffic Inspector, Rajendra Singh, were not furnished to the petitioner inspite of the demand being made through the departmental authorities. It was also asserted by the petitioner that Rajendra Singh was not produced as witness and was not ever examined (by) the Assistant Regional Manager who was appointed as the enquiry officer to conduct the enquiry. After the conclusion of the enquiry he submitted a report. The petitioner was accordingly dismissed from the service. He preferred an appeal against the order of dismissal in 1975 which was also dismissed. Thereafter the petitioner filed a claim petition before the Public Services Tribunal which was dismissed, thereafter, the present writ petition has been filed.

The main thrust of Sri Y.S. Lohit, learned counsel for the petitioner in the present writ petition appears to be is that the petitioner had made certain complaints against S.S. Chauhan, the Traffic Superintendent prior to the incident dated 15.6.1974 and for that reason S.S. Chauhan, the Traffic Suprintendent made a false and fictitious report against the petitioner. While disposing of this matter the Tribunal recorded a finding from which is evident that prior to the suspension of the petitioner, the petitioner had made complaints against S.S. Chauhan, Traffic Superintendent who had a grudge against the petitioner and was in search of an opportunity to victimise him. S.S. Chauhan was not the punishing authority. It was next argued by Sri Y.S. Lohit that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to defend his case inasmuch as the copies of the documents were not supplied to him which is evident from the final order of dismissal where it was mentioned that the conduct of (sic) Basant Lal could have seen from the copy of the report submitted by Rajendra Singh which was with the driver who was also charge sheeted alongwith the petitioner. This finding according to the petitioner clearly established that no copy of the report of Rajendra Singh was given by the Assistant Traffic Inspector. The Tribunal recorded a finding that in the chargesheet there was no mention that the report of Rajendra Singh, Assistant Traffic Inspector, will also be taken into consideration and if the report of Rajendra Singh was not given to the petitioner, it did not prejudice the petitioner in any manner. We have looked into the contents of the chargesheet which mentioned that on the same date Rajendra Singh who was the Assistant Traffic Inspector of the same rout gave a signal to stop the bus in question but the petitioner on the signal of Rajendra Singh did not stop the bus to make the proper checking from which it transpires that the petitioner and the driver had taken the passengers without ticket.

According to the allegations in the chargesheet, on the relevant date i.e. on 15th June, 1974 the Bus No. 5997 was proceeding from Mainpuri to Etah, of which the petitioner was conductor. Atabout 12.10 A.M. at Ganga Jamuni a signal was given by S.S. Chauhan to stop the bus. The petitioner as well as the driver saw the signal but speeded of the bus. The Traffic Superintendent chased the bus and could stop the bus at Lakaura, then he found that there were 70 to 80 passengers in the bus. The traffic Superintendent demanded from the petitioner the way bill but the petitioner refused to furnish to the Traffic inspector the way bill and excited the passengers so he could not has check the bus. It was also pointed out by Sri Y.S. Lohit that the Enquiry Officer has recorded a finding that when the bus was stopped by the Traffic Superintendent, the conductor and the driver did not quarrel with the Traffic Superintendent.

It was asserted that S.S. Chauhan who was prejudiced against the petitioner because the petitioner had earlier made certain complaints against him, made out a false case against the petitioner. The report of Rajendra Singh was not furnished to the petitioner. Rajendra Singh was not produced before the enquiry officer. It has been submitted by S.K. Kalia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that no foundation has been laid down by the petitioner about the alleged malice against S.S. Chauhan. The complaints which were made against S.S. Chauhan would have not influenced the enquiry officer to have unnecessarily punished the petitioner. It was pointed out as well that the petitioner never staked a claim before the enquiry officer to cross examine Rajendra Singh, Assistant Traffic Inspector and stated that he will not produce any evidence. It has been submitted that the petitioner as well as the driver both were chargesheeted but the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation on account of absence of instructions could not say as to what punishment was awarded to the driver.

It was also pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that it was not a first time when the petitioner was charged for taking persons without tickets, even on earlier occasion he was chargesheeted for taking ticketless passengers on the bus.

We have heard the submissions of the parties'' counsel at a considerable length of time. As far as the present case is concerned, No. doubt from the finding recorded by the enquiry officer as well as the Tribunal it is evident that the petitioner has been making certain complaints against the Assistant Traffic Inspector before the said incident. It has also been brought on the record that there was a definite charge in the chargesheet, that Rajendra Singh, the Assistant Traffic Inspector, had made certain reports against the petitioner, the copy of which was not given to the petitioner but that contention was brushed aside by the Tribunal for the reason that the copy of the report was given to the driver which could have been seen by the petitioner. In the departmental proceedings all the relevant documents upon which the imputation of charge is based should be supplied to the delinquent to enable him to cross examine the witnesses and to produce his own defence. Admittedly the report of Rajendra Singh was not furnished to the petitioner which is evident from the order of the Tribunal itself, in violation of principle of natural justice.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that the punishment of dismissal from service which has been awarded to the petitioner does not commensurate with the gravity of the charge. This aspect of the matter was not considered by the Tribunal because the Tribunal was of the view that that question could have been considered by the disciplinary authority. We need not mention the various pronouncement of the Supreme Court regarding the application of principle of proportionality in administrative law which the Court may apply in appropriate cases.

In the present case there was no evidence either by any independent person or by any of the passenger that the petitioner was carrying the ticket less. According to the rules and the procedure, whenever a ticket is issued to the passenger, it is mentioned in the way bill. If we accept the case of the U.P.S.R.T.C. that the petitioner refused to hand over the way bill to the Traffic Superintendent, even then it was incumbent upon him to have enquired from the passengers who were having tickets or any other independent source as to whether the petitioner was carrying in the bus ticketless passengers. At the relevant time, when the incident took place, when the bus used to be boarded on the bus stop tickets were issued by the Booking Clerk. It is only on the way, when waiting passengers stop the bus the conductor may allow the passengers to enter into the bus and issue tickets to them. There was no evidence on the record from which it transpires that the Booking Clerk had not issued any ticket when the bus stopped on a particular bus stop.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the punishment awarded to the petitioner did not commensurate with the gravity of the charge. In ordinary circumstances such a matter could have been remitted to the Tribunal for the consideration, but as the petitioner has been retired from service on 31.8.1994, hence it would be too harsh for the petitioner to agitate his grievance before the Tribunal again.

In view of the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the petitioner although will not be paid the back wages, but he would be deemed in service and after attaining the age of superannuation, would be entitled for post retrial benefits.

In view of what we have indicated hereinabove, the punishment order dated 1.2.1975 passed by the Assistant Regional Manager, Etah contained in Annexure 1, the appellate order dated June, 1975 passed by the Regional Manager contained in Annexure 2 and the order of the Tribunal dated 14.12.1984 contained in Annexure 3 to the writ petition are quashed. However the writ petition is partly allowed.

However, it is provided that the petitioner shall not be paid any amount as his back wages except the subsistence allowance which he might have received, although he would be deemed to be service till the date of his retirement and would be entitled to get the post retrial benefits.