- (1.) The respondent was a bus conductor in the Uttar Pradesh State roadways Organization. On 17/4/1971, he was placed under suspension. A charge-sheet dated 13/10/1971 was served upon the respondent. In the charge-sheet, two charges were framed. These charges were to the effect that on 13/8/1969 while the respondent was acting as the conductor of a bus, he had charged the passengers amounts in excess of the prescribed fare. When shri Paras Nath Pandey, the Assistant Traffic Inspector inspected the bus on that date, the respondent declined to return the excess fair and misbehaved with the Assistant Traffic inspector. The charge was that he had misbehaved with the checking staff and refused to return the excess amount. He was guilty of failure to discharge his duty properly, misbehaviour andmisappropriation of the passengers' money. Copy of the report of Shri Paras nath Pandey, Assistant Traffic Inspector, Jalalpur dated 18/8/1969 was annexed with the charge-sheet.
(2.) The second charge was that on 1/9/1969 while the respondent was acting as the conductor of a bus, it was checked by Shri Paras Nath Pandey, assistant Traffic Inspector, Jalalpur. It was found that though the fare had been collected from 5 passengers, no tickets were issued by the respondent to the passengers. When the ATI demanded from the respondent blank ticket-book for issuing tickets to those passengers, the respondent caused hindrance. He was, therefore, guilty of failure to discharge his duty properly, had intended to misappropriate government revenue and had been guilty of misconduct. The charge-sheet also stated the evidence which was proposed to be considered in support of the second charge. The documents relied upon were (1 report of Shri Pandey dated 2/9/1969, a copy of which was enclosed and (2 Way Bills Nos. 345-46/56 dated 1/9/1969 with checking remarks, which the respondent was asked to see in the office. He was required to put in a written submission in defence, in reply to each of the charges. He was also informed that if he desired to be heard in person or wished to examine or cross-examine any witness, the name and address of the witness with a brief indication of the evidence that each witness would be expected to give, should be submitted in writing.
(3.) The respondent gave his reply dated 28/10/1971. He also stated that he proposed to examine two witnesses, Shri Tiwary and Shri Ahluwalia. Thereafter, an enquiry was held. The enquiry report is dated 24/12/1971. Following the report, a show-cause notice was issued to the respondent by the Assistant General Manager on 31/12/1971. The respondent gave his reply to the show-cause notice which is dated 7/1/1972. On 16/4/1972, the assistant General Manager passed an order removing the respondent from service. The respondent filed an appeal from this order which was dismissed on 13/11/1973 by the General Manager of the Uttar Pradesh State Roadways organisation.;