Tersam Pal vs State and Others

Bansi Lal Bhat, J.—Following relief is claimed in the petition:

(a) An appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing Order No. JKSRTC/EC-IV/RHQ/J/Sec-1007 dated

21.01.2010 whereby the services of the petitioner have been terminated.

(b) An appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner to the

post of conductor with all consequential benefits.

Petitioner was working as conductor bearing No. 2781 in JKSRTC. The case set up by him for claiming the aforesaid relief is that on 07.05.2007,

petitioner was deputed on duty of conducting the bus bearing Registration No. JK02Y-207 plying from Amritsar to Jammu and while returning to

Jammu on 08.05.2007, two police personnel in uniform chasing some criminals boarded the Bus for Gurdaspur and were joined by four more

Policemen in uniform at Batala. They refused to pay the fare on the plea that policemen in uniform are not charged for travel throughout the State of

Punjab. It is further averred in the petition that at Gurdaspur, the bus was intercepted by the checking squad headed by Sh. Kuldip Kumar Munshi,

Manager Passenger Service along with two checkers namely, M/s. Paramjeet and Shiva. While checking tickets, the checking squad found the six

Policemen without tickets and after an enquiry, the Policemen told that they had not paid the fare. It is alleged by the petitioner that Mr. Munshi

demanded a bribe of Rs. 5,000/- from him but the petitioner refused to pay. This led to an altercation as Mr. Munshi mentioned those six

Policemen as passengers without tickets. Petitioner was accordingly placed under suspension on 16.05.2007. He made a representation against his

suspension. A charge-sheet dated 08.06.2007 was served upon him wherein he was implicated as habitual offender of professional misconduct

alleged to be grabbing the corporation's revenue. Respondents did not consider the defence of petitioner and a show cause notice dated

14.06.2008 was served upon him. It is further averred in the petition that the respondents, without appreciating the response of petitioner to the

show cause notice, passed the impugned order dated 21.01.2010 terminating the services of petitioner. It is contended that the impugned order

emanated out of mala fides and the departmental enquiry did not take notice of the statement given by a passenger supporting the petitioner's case.

Respondent No. 2-the contesting respondent, has filed objections denying the allegations in the petition. It is pleaded that the checking squad

had found six passengers out of 33 on board without travelling tickets though petitioner had collected the prescribed fare from passengers. It is

pleaded that the petitioner was placed under suspension on 16.05.2007 and an enquiry was initiated against him. Manager-Tourist Service

JKSRTC-Jammu was appointed as Enquiry Officer and a chargesheet was served upon petitioner on 08.06.2007 which was replied by the

petitioner. The enquiry officer found charges against the petitioner duly established. The matter was placed before the Competent Authority and in

view of allegations of demanding of bribe levelled by petitioner against an Officer of the Corporation, which were not established as per enquiry

report, a show cause notice dated 14.06.2008 came to be served upon the petitioner and in view of the unsatisfactory reply to the show cause

notice and record revealing involvement of petitioner on six occasions in ticketless travelling despite warning, the services of petitioner were

terminated in terms of impugned order dated 21.01.2010.

Petitioner sought leave to file supplementary affidavit wherein he has deposed that his appeal against the impugned termination order is pending

consideration before the Chairman of JKSRTC who happens to be the Minister for Transport. There is nothing on record to show that the appeal

has been decided.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

It is the admitted position in the case that out of 33 passengers on board, the checking squad found six passengers without tickets. While

according to petitioner, the six passengers were Policemen in uniform who had not paid any fare, the enquiry established that the six passengers

were ordinary passengers who had paid the fare which had been appropriated by petitioner to himself with dishonest intention. Petitioner's

complaint filed subsequently alleging demand of graft by the head of the checking squad was not supported by the witnesses during enquiry. The

only witness supporting the petitioner's complaint namely Dr. Ravi Jyee failed to turn up in the face to face enquiry and thus, did not substantiate

the allegations in the complaint of petitioner regarding alleged demand of bribe by K.K. Munshi, the then MPS heading the checking squad. The

act of misappropriation of the revenue collected by way of fare from the six ticketless passengers found by the checking squad undoubtedly

constituted gross misconduct on the part of petitioner who put up a false defense by brazen-facedly making false demand of bribery against the

Head of the checking squad which was not established during enquiry. The enquiry also laid bare, as discernible from the record, that the past

conduct of petitioner had not been unblemished and around half a dozen instances of misconduct were on record of his service. No illegality or

irregularity in conduct of disciplinary proceedings has been brought to the notice of this Court. Charge-sheet with specific allegations was served

upon the petitioner who was provided with ample opportunity of defending himself at all stages including the final stage when show cause notice

was served upon him. It is also not shown that the provisions of State Road Transport Corporation Service Condition Rules and Regulations,

1979 were not adhered to while conducting enquiry or terminating the services of petitioner. Undoubtedly petitioner was guilty of gross misconduct

justifying infliction of major penalty imposed upon him. His plea that in identical cases in the past the delinquent officials have been let off with

lighter penalties like imposition of fine/recovery of penalty has not been substantiated and record does not refer to any such instance after ninetys'.

Moreover, such plea does not constitute a legal defense and no parity can be claimed on the basis of an isolated instance on different set of facts.

There being no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed. Record be returned back.