U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Another vs State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow and Another

Sibghat Ullah Khan and Anil Kumar, JJ.—Heard Sri Prabhakar Tewari, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Brijesh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2.

Sri Prabhakar Tewari learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that respondent No. 2 (herein above referred as ''contesting respondent'') was initially appointed as Bus Conductor in the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred the ''Corporation'') and was subsequently confirmed on the said post in the month of 1979.

On 3.9.1991, the contesting respondent in the capacity of conductor was plying bus No. UP42/6156 of the Corporation on the route Nawabganj to Delhi via Colonelganj. While the said bus was in the way, the checking was done by the checking squad at the place Ballipur at about 2.30 p.m. The checking squad on the basis of the checking found that 14 tickets were issued to the passengers by the contesting respondent but the entry of the same was not made in the way-bill. Besides this, 16 passengers travelling without ticket for a different destination were found without tickets accordingly, a report was sent in this regard by the Checking Squad to the competent authority.

On 11.9.1991 and order was passed by the competent authority by which contesting respondent was suspended, a charge-sheet was also issued on the same day and from the penal enquiry officer in the Corporation, an enquiry officer was appointed for conducting the enquiry in the matter in question.

After receiving the charge-sheet, petitioner submitted his reply on 20.12.1991, denying the charges levelled against him thereafter, an enquiry of was conducted by the enquiry officer and during the course of the enquiry proceedings the contesting respondent had produced two witnesses, namely, Kaushal Kumar and Devi Prasad, who are according to the contesting respondent, were travelling in the same bus at the time when the inspection was done by the Checking Squad on 3.9.1991. On the basis of the statement of the said witnesses, the contesting respondent wanted to establish that he was not guilty of charges which was levelled against him by means of charge-sheet dated 11.9.1991.

The enquiry officer after conducting the enquiry, on 5.12.1991 had submitted his report to the competent authority stating therein that on the basis of documents and evidence available on record, he came to the conclusion that some passengers, who was travelling in the bus without ticket, were travelling in another mini bus from Nawabganj to Colonelganj but the said bus had gone out of order due to some technical defects as such the said passengers boarded in the bus in question and they themselves had not taken the tickets so it did not establish that the contesting respondent wilfully had not issued the tickets to the passengers, who were entered into the bus from mini bus. Accordingly, the enquiry officer had come to conclusion in his report mat the contesting respondent wilfully had not issued the tickets to the said passengers.

The competent authority disagree with the finding given by the enquiry officer in its enquiry report and on 10.12.1991 had issued show cause notice to the petitioner alongwith copy of the report stating therein that why he be not removed from service.

After receiving the said show-cause notice, the petitioner had submitted his reply on 20.12.1991 after considering the same, the punishing/competent authority had passed an order dated 24.1.1992 thereby removing him.

Aggrieved by the said order, the contesting respondent filed an appeal before the appellate authority. During the pendency of the said appeal before the appellate authority and without waiting the decision of the same, the contesting respondent filed claim petition before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal which was numbered as Claim petition No. 289(F)/V/1992, Ram Saran v. State of U.P. and others and after exchange of pleadings between the parties concerned therein, the Tribunal and by means of judgment and order dated 8.12.2005 had allowed the claim petition filed by the contesting respondent and set aside the order of removal dated 14.1.1992 passed by Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Faizabad.

The order dated 8.12.1995 passed by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow in claim petition No. 289/F/V/1992 was challenged by the petitioners by means of present writ petition before this Court.

Sri Prabhakar Tewari, learned Counsel for the petitioner, in brief, has submitted that the order dated 8.12.1995 passed by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow is totally unsustainable and arbitrary in nature as during the checking, the checking squad had found that the tickets were issued to 14 passengers but no entry were made in the way-bill and in addition to the said facts, 16 passengers were found without tickets in the bus which goes to show mala fide intention of the contesting respondent for not issuing the tickets to the passengers, who were boarded into the bus for his personal gains thereby causing loss to the Corporation.

He further submits that the contesting respondent was holding the post of Conductor in the Corporation and the post of Conductor is the post of trust and a person guilty of breach of trust should be imposed punishment of removal from service and in regard to above said submission, he relied upon the following judgments:-

V. Ramana v. A.P.S.R.T.C. and others, 2005 (107) FLR 262 (SC)

Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Raghuda Siva Sankar Prasad,

Further, on the basis of said above facts, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 18.12.1995 passed by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow is contrary to law and the present petition is liable to be allowed.

Sri Brijesh Kumar, learned Counsel for the contesting respondent submits that the order passed by the Tribunal is perfectly valid and in accordance with law as on 3.9.1991 when the checking was done by the checking squad at that relevant time another mini bus had gone out of order due to mechanical defects so the passenger of the said bus were boarded in the bus in which the contesting respondent was conductor and the said passengers themselves have not taken the tickets, the said facts were categorically established and proved by the two independent witnesses, namely, Kashual Kumar and Devi Prasad during the course of enquiry proceedings and on the basis of which the enquiry officer after conducting enquiry in his enquiry report had stated that the contesting respondent had not issued the tickets to the passengers who are travelling in the bus wilfully, taking into the account the said fact, the Tribunal had rightly allowed the claim petition of the contesting respondent and thus, no inference is required in the present writ petition and the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

On the basis of pleadings on record and the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties; the undisputed fact which comes to the light in the present case, are that when the checking was done by the checking squad at Ballipur on 3.9.1991 of bus No. U.P. 42/6156 of the Corporation plying between Nawabganj to Delhi via Colonelganj in which contesting respondent was conductor. It was found that tickets were issued to 14 passengers but entry was not made in the way bill and besides the said fact 16 passengers of different destination found without tickets.

If the defence as advanced by the learned Counsel for the contesting respondent in support of his case is taken into consideration that the passengers were found without tickets were boarded in the bus due to the fact that another mini bus had gone out of order due to mechanical defects and the passengers of the said mini bus had boarded in the bus in which the contesting respondent was conductor and they themselves had not taken ticket so he was not guilty for not issuing tickets to them even it was his duty of the contesting respondent to issue tickets to the said passengers, who had boarded into bus and only thereafter taken the bus on the route in question. The said act was a part of the duty of the contesting respondent which he himself had not performed.

Further, in the present case, contesting respondent had issued tickets to 14 passenger but the entry of the said tickets were not made in the way-bill the said act was nothing but amount to gross negligence on the part of the contesting respondent which reflects the mala fide intention for his part for personal gains and caused financial loss to the Corporation.

It is not disputed that the petitioner who was conductor in the bus, which is the post of trust and a person guilty of breach of trust should be imposed punishment of removal from service as the said act is in violation of service condition according to our opinion, as the above said aspect of the present case had not been considered by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal while deciding the claim petition. So the judgment passed by the Tribunal cannot sustain.

In the case of Karnataka SRTC v. B.S. Hullikatti, 2001 (88) FLR 912 (SC) Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that misconduct in such cases where 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 fare charges/from the passengers and deposit the same with the Corporation. They act in fiduciary capacity and it would be a case of gross misconduct if they do not collect any fare or the correct amount of fare. A conductor hold a post of trust. A person guilty of breach of trust should be imposed punishment of removal from service.

In the case of Regional Manager, R.S.R.T.C. v. Ghanshyam Sharma, 2002 (92) FLR 12 (SC) Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that it is misplaced sympathy by Courts in 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 charges. Hon''ble Supreme Court has also observed that the proved act amount either to a case of dishonesty or of 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.

The said view was further reiterated by Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Hoti Lal. 2003 (96) FLR 1076 (SC)

In the case of V. Ramana v. A.P.S.R.T.C. and others, 2003 (96) FLR 1076 (SC) Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that a conductor hold a post of trust. A person guilty of breach of trust should be imposed punishment of removal from service. 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 A.P. State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.

In the case of Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Raghuda Siva Sankar Prasad, Hon''ble Apex Court has held that once an employee has lost the confidence of the employer, it would not be safe and in the interest of the Corporation to continue the employee in the service. The loss of confidence occupies the primary factor and not the amount of money and sympathy and generosity cannot be a factor which is permissible in law in such matters. When the employee is found guilty there is nothing wrong in the Corporation losing confidence or faith in such an employee and awarding punishment of removal. In such cases, there is no place of generosity or place of sympathy on the part of the judicial forums and interfering with the quantum of the punishment. The punishment, imposed by the management in the facts and circumstances of the case, is not disproportionate and the punishment of removal from service is just and reasonable and proportionate to the proved misconduct.

In the case of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Nanhe Lal Kushwaha, 2009 (123) FLR 388 (SC) Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that it is the responsibility of the bus conductors to collect the correct fare from the passenger and deposit the same with the Corporation. They act in a fiduciary capacity and it would be a case of gross misconduct if knowingly they do not collect any fare or the correct amount of fare then in such circumstances the punishment of removal awarded to the Conductor is perfectly valid and in the above said judgment (Nanhe Lai Kushwaha) after relying on the earlier judgment in the case of Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Hoti Lal, (supra) Hon''ble Supreme Court has held in para 10 as under:-

It needs to be emphasised that the Court or Tribunal while dealing with the quantum of punishment has to record reasons as to why it is felt that the punishment was not commensurate with the proved charges. As has been highlighted in several cases to which reference has been made above, the scope for interference is very limited and restricted to exceptional cases in the indicated circumstances. Unfortunately, in the present case as the quoted extracts of the High Court''s order would go to show, no reasons whatsoever have been indicated as to why the punishment was considered disproportionate. Reasons are live Links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice.

For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that the judgment and order 8.12.1995 passed by the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal is not in accordance with law.

Accordingly writ petition is allowed. A writ of certiorari is issued thereby the judgment and order dated 8.12.1995 passed by U.P. Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow in claim petition No. 289 (F)/V/1992 is quashed and the order dated 24.1.1992 passed by Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Faizabad by which the contesting respondent was removed from service, is maintained.

No order as to costs.