BHAGWAN Vs. M S R T C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this Petition, the Petitioner is seeking appropriate writ directing the Respondents to reinstate him in service with full back wages and continuity of service and for further direction of quashing enquiry report passed by the Enquiry Officer and the consequent order of dismissal dated January 23, 1984.

(2.) THE brief facts, giving rise to the present petition, are as follows: the petitioner was appointed as an Officer trainee for a period of 9 months vide order dated May 10, 1977. Upon completion of training by the petitioner in the Central training Institute, Bhusari, he was appointed as Class II (Jr.) Officer in the Scale of rs. 350-650/- and was posted as Additional depot Manager of the Maharashtra State road Transport Corporation, Pune Region. The petitioner was confirmed as Technical class II (Junior) Officer with effect from march 1, 1979.

(3.) THE petitioner was transferred from Pune region to Nagpur Region on December 23, 1978 and was subsequently transferred to Akola division as an Assistant Mechanical Engineer on july 16, 1980. On November 23, 1982, the, petitioner received a letter from respondent No. 3 calling his explanation as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. It was alleged in this letter that the petitioner has secured petrol at the cost of the Maharashtra State Road transport Corporation. The Petitioner submitted his explanation by sending his reply dated december 10, 1982 and denied the charges levelled against him. Thereafter the petitioner was issued charge sheet dated December 17,1982 and he was charged for the misconduct specified in clause 12 (a) and Clause 12 (b) of Schedule A of the Discipline and Appeal proceedings. Enquiry held was concluded by the Enquiry Officer who recorded the statements of number of witnesses and he found the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. Thereafter, second show cause notice was issued as to why he should not be dismissed from service in view of the enquiry. The petitioner submitted detailed reply to the show cause notice challenging the said enquiry report on the ground that enquiry report was vitiated as he was not given due opportunity and that the said report was based on the statements not recorded during the course of enquiry. The petitioner's service was dismissed by the second respondent by his order dated January 23, 1984. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order. However, the appeal was also dismissed. Being aggrieved by the said order of dismissal from service, the petitioner preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.