Decided on December 26,2012



HONBLE KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA, J. - (1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged two orders dated 16th October, 2007 and 30th November, 2007 respectively. By the first mentioned order, respondent No.2 being the Managing Director of Uttarakhand Road Transport Corporation has held that order of punishment dated 22nd February, 2007 is null and void and without jurisdiction and remanded the matter for taking fresh decision to the respondent No.4 who has passed the second mentioned order being the order of dismissal. The fact leading to the filing of the writ petition could be marshalled from the pleadings as follows: -
(2.) AT the material point of time, the petitioner being Conductor in Bus No. U.A.7L -4051 was discharging his duty on board the said vehicle. The said vehicle, while it was being plied from Kathgodam to Chandigarh on 6th May, 2006, it was detected by the Assistant Traffic Inspector that some passengers are found to have been travelling without tickets issued to the passengers in the said vehicle, even some tickets were also manipulated. Therefore, chargesheet was issued to hold inquiry, by the Assistant General Manager, Uttarakhand State Road Transport Corporation, Rudrapur. One Mr. Jai Bhagwan Sharma was appointed as Inquiry Officer and charges levelled against the petitioner were found to be proved by the Enquiry Officer. Accordingly the petitioner was held guilty. On acceptance of the report, the disciplinary authority, being the appointing authority, imposed punishment withholding of seven increments, and also passed order of forfeiture of salary during suspension period. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner was suspended during the disciplinary proceedings.
(3.) THE aforesaid order of punishment has not been challenged in this writ petition rather it has been accepted by necessary implication by the petitioner. I have noticed the averment made in paragraph 10 of the writ petition wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner has not challenged the said order of punishment either before the appellate authority or before the revising authority, therefore, order dated 22nd February, 2007 passed by the respondent No. 3 has become final. Respondent No. 2 in purported exercise of its power under Regulation 69 A called for the records su moto, and after having gone through the records, he viewed that the punishment order was not passed by the competent authority as the same was issued by the Assistant General Manager in Charge. Thus, by the impugned order dated 16th October, 2007, he remanded the matter to the respondent No.4. In between the period from the date of passing order dated 22nd February, 2007 and that of impugned order dated 16th October, 2007, the fresh power was delegated to the respondent No.4 describing him as appointing / punishing authority. Thereafter, the respondent No.4 passed order of dismissal.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.