- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Samir Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Facts, giving rise to the dispute as they emerge out from the pleadings of the parties, are as under: The petitioner was initially appointed as Conductor on 21.11.1977 in Jaunpur Depot. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Office Assistant-II. In June 1994, he was transferred from Varanasi to Vindhya Nagar Depot. While he was serving in Vindhya Nagar Depot, an alleged compliant said to have been signed by 32 employees including the Conductors, Drivers and Chaukidars of Vindhya Nagar Depot was sent to Divisional General Manager, Eastern Division/Zone, UPSRTC, Varanasi, the respondent No. 2 herein, levelling charges against the petitioner and Assistant Regional Manager of the Vindhya Nagar Depot of extorting money for withdrawing the suspension order against the employee, which, in fact, were false and fabricated. The Divisional General Manager vide letter dated 30.7.1998 directed the Assistant Regional Manager, Vindhya Nagar Depot to relieve five persons out of 32 alleged signatories of the complaint for appearing before him on 7.8.1998 in order to verify the complaint. These five persons, including the petitioner, were Shahid Parvez, Tribhuwan Yadav, Tilak Raj and Hans Nath Maurya, Conductors. In compliance of the aforesaid direction, the Assistant Regional Manager vide letter dated 4.8.1998 directed all the persons to appear before the Divisional Regional Manager on 7.8.1998. However, the petitioner alleges that he was on casual leave from 4.8.1998 to 7.8.1998 hence he could not get the notice or knowledge of enquiry being conducted by the respondent No. 2. The other four persons appeared on 7.8.1998. All the four persons denied their signature on the complaint. After returning from leave, when the petitioner came to know about the aforesaid fact, he moved an application before the respondent No. 2 explaining reason for his non-appearance on the said date with the request to fix some other date for hearing. The respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 29.9.1998 directed the Regional Manager, Varanasi Regional of the Corporation to initiate disciplinary proceedings by charge-sheeting the petitioner and inform the action taken against him. Copy of the letter which has been filed as Annexure '10' to the writ petition categorically records the fact that there are sufficient evidence against the petitioner as such he may be charge-sheeted and disciplinary proceedings be initiated against him. In compliance of the aforesaid direction issued by the respondent No. 2, the respondent No. 3 served upon the petitioner the charge-sheet dated 16.1.1999 levelling charges and vide order dated 28.1.1999 appointed Sri Sugreev Rai, Assistant Regional Manager (Karmik-I), Varanasi, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure '13' to the writ petition. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 16.4.1999. The Inquiry Officer fixed 29.4.1999 on which date Sri Shahid Parvez, Tilar Raj and Hans Nath Maurya appeared and their statement was record. They again categorically denied their signature on the complaint. Thus, only three persons were examined as witness in support of the charges levelled against the petitioner who also denied their signature on the complaint on the basis of which the disciplinary proceedings were initiated. The matter remained pending and the statement of the petitioner was recorded by the Inquiry officer on 3.12.1999 though the complaint was also against the Assistant Regional Manager of Vindhya Nagar Depot but neither he was issued any show-cause notice nor any proceedings were initiated against him. He was not even called to appear during enquiry proceedings. Striking feature to be taken note of that after statement of three witnesses was recorded, Sri Sugreev Rai, Assistant Regional Manager (Karmik-I), who was nominated as inquiry officer and was conducting the enquiry was changed on 28.9.1999 and replaced by one Sri Kailash Ram, Assistant Regional Manager (Operation), Varanasi, who recorded the statement of the petitioner on 3.12.1999 and finally submitted report dated 5.5.2000 holding the petitioner guilty of the charge of extorting money from the other employees by coercion. The report was forwarded to the respondent No. 3, the Regional Manager, who issued a show-cause notice dated 23.3.2000 requiring the petitioner to submit his reply to the enquiry report. The petitioner submitted his reply on 23.5.2000. The respondent No. 3 vide order dated 31.5.2000 imposed a major penalty of dismissal from service upon the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the order of dismissal by filing Writ Petition No. 24184 of 2001 which was dismissed vide order dated 30.1.2002 on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of appeal under Section 69 of the State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Other than Officers) Service Regulations, 1981. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred appeal which was dismissed vide order dated 13.1.2003. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court.
(2.) First submission advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that decision regarding initiating proceedings was not independently taken by the disciplinary authority himself but at the direction of higher authority hence the same is vitiated. Reliance in support of the contention has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others v. B.N. Jha, 2003 4 SCC 531. He has next contended that enquiry proceedings and all consequential action based thereon are also vitiated on account of the fact that the person who conducted the enquiry did not submit the enquiry report rather it was submitted by another person who was never appointed inquiry officer by the disciplinary authority. He has also submitted that finding of the inquiry officer proving charge is based on no evidence in as much as out of 32 complainants only three were examined who also denied their signatures on the complaint.
(3.) Replying to the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Samir Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, has vehemently contended that the respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 29.9.1998 only forwarded all the documents against the petitioner to the then Regional Manager, Varanasi only with the observation that he should issue charge-sheet and initiate departmental proceedings against the petitioner at his own level and since no finding was recorded by him regarding proof of misconduct against the petitioner hence the departmental proceedings and punishment cannot be said to be vitiated on the ground of bias and any superior authority can initiate departmental proceedings. To support the contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Police v. Jayasurian and another, 1997 6 SCC 75. It has further been contended that the argument that Sri Kailash Ram who has submitted the enquiry report and did not conduct any enquiry and only submitted a report is incorrect in as much as defence statement was recorded before him and after assessing the evidence already on record, he submitted the enquiry report. He has further pointed out that Assistant Regional Manager (Karmik-I), Varanasi was appointed as Enquiry Officer and since Sri Sugreev Ram was holding the post, he was conducting the enquiry. However, after his transfer Assistant Regional Manager (Operation) Sri Kailash Ram was given charge of Karmit (I) as such he completed the enquiry and submitted report. He has further submitted that change of enquiry officer will not vitiate the enquiry proceedings. He has placed reliance on a Full Bench judgment of Orissa High Court in the case of Bauribandhu Misra v. I.G. of Police and others, 1970 AIR(Ori) 213 Sri Samir Sharma has also urged that the statement of the witnesses recorded during the disciplinary proceedings clearly established guilt of the petitioner and thus, he has rightly been held guilty.;