- (1.) S. P. Mehrotra, J. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,1950 has been filed, inter alia, challenging the suspension order dated 3-5-2002 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) passed by the Managing Director, U. P. State Road Transport Corporation, Meerut Region, Meerut (Respondent No. 1 ).
(2.) IT is inter alia, alleged in the writ petition that at the time of his suspension by the said order dated 3- 5-2002, the petitioner was working and posted as clerk designated as 'office Assistant Grade II' in the office of the Regional Manager, U. P. State Road Transport Corporation, Meerut; and that the petitioner was appointed on the said post and he joined the services on 9th July, 1987 and that with effect from February, 1989, on the directions of his superiors, the petitioner was performing the job of 'pairokar' on behalf of the respondent-department; and that as a pairokar, the petitioner used to contact panel lawyers of the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation (in short "the Corporation") in order to enable them to conduct cases in the law Courts on behalf of the respondent Corporation; and that as a pairokar, the petitioner was working as a 'link' and 'messenger' between the Corporation and the penal lawyers, and that the petitioner was not a law graduate and was not supposed to assist the panel lawyers regarding the line of action and arguments to be given by the lawyers before the Court or regarding his opinion about relevancy or irrelevancy of any fact in connection with the cases; and that for his outstanding work as 'pairokar' the petitioner was issued appreciation letters; and that the petitioner was suspended by the said order dated 3-5-2002 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) on five allegations mentioned therein. The petitioner has, inter alia, made allegations in regard to various claim petitions before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Meerut filed on account of an accident which took place on 13th March, 2000, wherein there was collision between Bus No. U. P.-15 D-0167 of the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation with another Bus No. U. P. 15 D-1735 near Morta, Ghaziabad. Notices on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were accepted by Sri Sameer Sharma, Advocate. On 3-9-2002, counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondents was filed. It has, inter alia, been alleged in the said counter-affidavit that the petitioner was given appointment on compassionate ground on the post of 'office Assistant Grade II' in the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation with effect from 9-7-1987 and was deputed in the legal cell of Meerut Region of the Corporation; and that as there was a prima facia case of serious misconduct relating to forgery and collusion so as to cause great financial loss to the corporation, the petitioner was placed under suspension and a charge-sheet dated 13-6-2002 (Annexure No. 5 to the counter-affidavit) has been issued to him; and that although the said charge-sheet has been received by the petitioner, he has not disclosed the same before this Court in the present writ. It has inter alia, been further alleged in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner was himself instrumental in getting bogus claim petitions filed against the Corporation and thereafter, he filed forged documents and withheld relevant evidence from being filed before the Tribunal; and that the petitioner also did not place the various letters written by the Advocates to the Regional Manager of the Corporation and misplaced the same so that the correct facts were not placed before the Tribunal; and that since the month of February, 1989 the petitioner was working as an office assistant in the legal cell of the Corporation; and that the petitioner was in- charge custodian of all the records and files relating to Motor Accident Claims cases and his duties not only included contacting the various lawyers and parties but also informing the officers of the Corporation by written comments about the progress of the claim cases; and that the petitioner not only colluded with the claimants by helping them to file bogus claims against the Corporation but also submitting forged documents, withholding relevant evidence from being placed before the Tribunal and not informing the Regional Manager of the Corporation of the various letters written to him by the Advocates concerned and that as there were charges of serious misconduct against the petitioner, which if proved could result in major punishment, he has been rightly placed under suspension.
(3.) IN reply to the said counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the petitioner has filed today, rejoinder-affidavit. IN the said rejoinder-affidavit the petitioner has denied allegations made in the counter-affidavit. The petitioner has, inter alia, further alleged that various documents filed alongwith the rejoinder-affidavit establish that it was not the petitioner but the panel lawyer, Miss Sunita Bharadwaj, who filed false claims and signed herself as Smt. Pinki Gupta, Advocate, and that is why the Corporation itself had removed Miss. Sunita Bharadwaj from the penal of the lawyers of the Corporation. It has inter alia, been further alleged in the rejoinder-affidavit that the petitioner has already filed his reply dated 27-7-2002 against the charge-sheet dated 13-6-2002 given to the petitioner. A copy of the said reply dated 27-7-2002 has been filed as Annexure No. 15 to the rejoinder-affidavit. I have heard Sri Ashok Trivedi and Sri Ashish Mohan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sameer Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondents.;