- (1.) Leave granted. The respondent herein was appointed conductor of a bus by the Uttar Pradesh State road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "u. P. S. R. T. C. "). On the allegation that he was found to be driving the bus URO 7908 and that no ticket had been issued to a lone passenger found in the bus and he had in his possession used tickets, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent. A domestic enquiry was got conducted through a retired judicial officer. He found that the respondent was unauthorisedly driving the bus and that no ticket had been issued to a lone passenger sitting in the bus when the checking party inspected the bus. He also found that the respondent had in his possession 12 used tickets. Based on the finding at the enquiry and after hearing the respondent, u. P. S. R. T. C. imposed a punishment of removal against the respondent.
(2.) At the instance of the respondent, the matter was sent to the labour court. It was numbered as Adjudication Case No. 259 of 1991. The Presiding Officer found that the domestic enquiry relied on by the U. P. S. R. T. C. was not proper. The parties were given an opportunity to lead evidence. U. P. S. R. T. C. adduced evidence in support of the charge. The respondent adduced no evidence. In other words, he did not even try to explain the circumstances under which he was allegedly driving the bus or the circumstance in which it was found that a lone passenger travelling in the bus had not been issued a ticket. He also did not try to explain as to how he came to be in possession of 12 used tickets. The Presiding Officer, in spite of the absence of evidence on the side of the respondent proceeded to interfere with the punishment imposed. It appears that the presiding Officer found that the respondent was a conductor but was driving the bus. There was clear evidence before him that the driving of the bus by a conductor amounted to misconduct. The Presiding Officer, in fact, noticed that only the respondent could explain how the twelve used tickets were with him or how he happened to be in possession of them. He also stated that if used tickets were found with the conductor it falls within the definition of misconduct. Taking a curious view that since no action has been taken against the driver, no action could be taken against the respondent alone and that the punishment awarded was too severe, the Presiding Officer proceeded to interfere with the punishment.
(3.) The Presiding Officer directed the reinstatement of the respondent with continuity of service and all the remaining dues but directed the stoppage of his annual increment. He further directed that the respondent will receive his annual increment only when he satisfied his senior officers for three years without any charges or complaint against him. Apparently, what he meant was that the question of increment would depend upon the respondent satisfying his superiors over a period of three years that his conduct as a conductor during that period was blemishless.;