AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Lok Pal Singh, J
1). Petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by way of filing present writ petition, seeking following relief, among others:
(a) Issue a writ, order or direction quashing the impugned office order / letter A.G.M./ Rudra. /D.P.-Shankar/ 17-1993 dated 15.06.2017, issued by respondent no. 3 (copy Annexure no. 3 to the writ petition) and further be pleased to direct the respondents to immediately reinstate the petitioner in his service with continuity of service along with all benefits.
(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding / directing the respondents to pay the dues / remuneration to the petitioner for the period of 20th April 2017 to 13th June 2017, for which period the petitioner worked in Rudrapur Depot on the post of Conductor (outsourcing manpower) along with 18% interest thereon.
2) Brief facts leading to filing of present writ petition are that petitioner was posted as conductor (outsourcing manpower) in Rudrapur Depot, District Udham Singh Nagar on 20.06.2015. The petitioner was being paid remuneration at the rate of Rs.1.86 per kilometer. On 13.06.2017, petitioner was on duty and departed from Rudrapur to Tanakpur. When the bus reached one kilometer ahead, the petitioner started preparing tickets of passengers on Electronic Biometric Ticket Machine (EBTM), which suddenly stopped working. On this, the petitioner went back to Rudrapur Depot office and brought another EBTM. He again started issuing tickets by stopping the bus, but on the request of passengers, who were already getting late, he started issuing tickets in running bus. The petitioner almost completed the task of issuing tickets and only one passenger was left. Meanwhile the Asstt. Transport Inspector, Rudrapur Depot stopped the bus and forcefully snatched the EBTM from the petitioner. The petitioner requested him to return the EBTM as only one passenger remained without ticket, but the Asstt. Transport Inspector (A.T.I.) deliberately insulted the petitioner and misbehaved with him and also made entry of one passenger as 'without ticket'. It is averred that the passengers, who were travelling on 13.06.2017 in the Transport Corporation bus gave their statements in favour of the petitioner and supported his version. It is alleged that the respondent no. 3 without considering the statement of passengers and without conducting any fair and proper enquiry in the matter, only relying upon the story of A.T.I., passed an office order on 15.06.2017 and removed the name of petitioner from the manpower of Rudrapur Depot and also forfeited all dues and security amount of the petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioner has not been paid remuneration from 20th April 2017 to 13th June 2017 (55 days), which comes to Rs.16,000/- and also denied bonus amount of Rs.3,000/- which was to be paid to the petitioner for extra travelling collection in favour of Corporation.
3) It is further stated in the writ petition that respondent no. 3 mentioned in the impugned office order dated 15.06.2017 that at the time of inspection total 48½ passengers were found travelling, wherefrom one passenger travelling from Rudrapur - Sitarganj was found without ticket, whose ticket was made by the A.T.I. from the EBTM of petitioner for an amount of Rs.49/- and the ticket was issued to the passenger. It is alleged that the A.T.I. deliberately showed the said passenger to have travelled from Rudrapur - Sitarganj, while the said passenger was travelling from Rudrapur - Kiccha. It is alleged that the ticket of last passenger was also made from the EBTM of petitioner, but even then the A.T.I. entered one passenger to be without ticket. The respondent no. 3 has not considered this fact and illegally disengaged the petitioner from the services of the Transport Corporation by the order impugned.
4) It is averred in the writ petition that prior to passing of impugned order neither show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by respondent no. 3, nor reasonable opportunity of being heard was afforded to the petitioner and merely relying upon the statement of A.T.I., the impugned office order dated 15.06.2017 has been passed. Thereafter, the Divisional Manager (Operation), Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, Kathgodam vide office letter dated 23.09.2017, directed the Asstt. General Manager, Haldwani to conduct an enquiry in the matter. Pursuant to letter dated 23.09.2017 the A.G.M., Haldwani conducted a detailed enquiry in the matter and submitted his report, wherein it has been held that the petitioner was not involved in any type of corruption and only this much has been observed - 'if the bus had departed after issuance of tickets to the passengers, then this situation would not have arisen'.
5) It is alleged that even after the detailed enquiry report, the respondents are not taking the petitioner back in service and also did not pay the dues of 55 days during which period the petitioner worked as conducted in Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, Rudrapur Depot.
6) Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating therein that when the petitioner was on duty as a conductor in bus bearing registration no. UK 07PA / 0932 from Rudrapur to Tanakpur, the vehicle was checked near Devaria toll at about 09:35 A.M. During checking, one passenger was found travelling without ticket. It is further stated that the petitioner misbehaved with the authorities at the time of checking and also threatened the inspecting authorities. An inquiry was conducted against the petitioner and the disciplinary authorities having considered the enquiry report and other documents passed the order dated 15.06.2017, and disengaged the petitioner from the services of Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and his security money was also forfeited.
7) In his rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner has reiterated the averments made in the writ petition. However, it has been stated that the impugned order dated 15.06.2017 was passed merely relying upon the story narrated by the A.T.I. and, in fact, no departmental enquiry was conducted prior to removal of the name of petitioner from the manpower of Rudrapur Depot. Lastly, it is stated that order impugned is liable to be quashed / set aside.
8) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings of writ petition, counter affidavit, rejoinder affidavit and other documents brought on record.
9) Learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this Court towards the Office Letter no. 02/2017/41/IX/2016 dated 12.01.2017, addressed by the Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand to the Managing Director, Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, Dehradun, in regard to re-offering the service to the contractual / outsourcing conductors, who have been removed from services of Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, with certain relaxations, which are as under:
those employees who remained absent from their duties for 02 months or less without any prior intimation.
those employees who were caught carrying freight upto 05 quintal without booking / less weight booking.
those employees, who were caught in the matters of taking passengers without tickets during journey and their total amount of fare is upto Rs.250/-.
those employees, who were found involved in zero amount or toll ticket matters and the maximum amount of toll matter is Rs.500/-or less than it.
those employees who have been acquitted in the enquiry.
10) On the strength of said Office Letter, learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that the Asstt. General Manager, Haldwani had found in the inquiry report that the petitioner is not involved in any type of corruption, meaning thereby, that the petitioner was acquitted from the charge leveled against him. Learned counsel would further urge that the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service on the post of conductor in view of clause 5 of aforesaid Office Letter dated 12.01.2017.
11) Learned counsel for the petitioner would also urge that the petitioner made representation dated 08.05.2018 to the Managing Director, Uttarakhand Transport Corporation requesting for revoking the service termination order dated 15.06.2017 passed against the petitioner with a further prayer to reinstate him in departmental service in view of Office Letter dated 12.01.2017, but to no avail.
12) It is settled position in law that when the Statute provides that things should be done in a particular manner, the same should be done in that manner alone and not otherwise. This principle has been conclusively settled in a number of judgments [Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Vs Anjum M.H. Ghaswala, (2002) 1 SCC 633; State of Jharkhand and others Vs Ambay Cements and another, 2005 (1) SCC 368].
13) In State of U.P. Vs Singhara Singh & other, AIR 1964 Supreme Court 358, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"8. The rule adopted in Taylor Vs Taylor (1876) 1 Ch D 426 is well recognized and is founded on sound principle. Its result is that if a statute has conferred a power to do an act and has laid down the method in which that power has to be exercised, it necessarily prohibits the doing of the act in any other manner than that which has been prescribed. The principle behind the rule is that if this were not so, the statutory provision might as well not have been enacted. A magistrate, therefore, cannot in the course of investigation record a confession except in the manner laid down in S. 164. The power to record the confession had obviously been given so that the confession might be proved by the record of it made in the manner laid down. If proof of the confession by other means was permissible, the whole provision of S. 164 including the safeguards contained in it for the protection of accused persons would be rendered nugatory. This action, therefore, by conferring on magistrates the power to record statements or confession, by necessary implication, prohibited a magistrate from giving oral evidence of the statements or confessions given to him."
14) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhananjaya Reddy Vs State of Karnataka, (2001) 4 SCC 9, took the same view that where law requires a thing to be done in a certain manner, it has to be done in that manner or not at all. The Court further observed that the power must be exercised in the manner provided by the Statute.
15) Indisputably, a departmental enquiry commenced against the petitioner and he has been removed from the services of the Uttarakhand Transport Corporation by order dated 15.06.2017, issued by respondent no. 3. All dues and security amount of the petitioner was also forfeited. It is also not in dispute that prior to passing of the impugned order, neither any show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, nor was he provided any opportunity of hearing. The Asstt. General Manager / Enquiry Officer submitted enquiry report and did not find the petitioner engaged in any kind of corruption. Furthermore, no reason has been assigned by respondent no. 3 as to why compliance of Office Letter dated 12.01.2017 has not been made. Also, no reasons have been shown why the major penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner. Respondent no. 3 has utterly failed to take into consideration the report of the Enquiry Officer as also no reason has been assigned regarding non-compliance of the Office Letter and without considering the proportionality has awarded major punishment against the petitioner. The Department was bound to follow its own guidelines which have the statutory force. On receipt of the enquiry report, the employer should have send a copy of the same to the petitioner inviting his objections, but straight away the punishment order has been passed which is against the principle of natural justice. To my mind, the penalty awarded to the petitioner is also disproportionate to the alleged offence, as such, the order impugned is liable to be set aside and quashed.
16) In view of the findings recorded above, impugned order dated 15.06.2017 is unsustainable in the eyes of law. The same is hereby quashed.
Writ petition stands allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued to the third respondent to forthwith reinstate the petitioner on the post of Conductor in the service of respondent Corporation giving him benefit of Office Letter dated 12.01.2017. The dues / remuneration due to the petitioner for the period 20.04.2017 to 13.06.2017 during which he worked in Rudrapur Depot of the respondent Corporation on the post of Conductor (outsourcing manpower) be also paid to him within a period of four weeks from today. No order as to costs.