S.H.A. Raza, J. - (1.) Being aggrieved against the order of removal, petitioner, who was working as Conductor in U.P.S.R.T.C, and at the relevant time was posted at Unnao, has preferred this writ petition.
(2.) Factual matrix as set out in the writ petition is that on 30-5-1988 while the petitioner was performing his duties an Ashoha-Unnao route and the bus started from Aahoha at 7.15 A. M. a sudden surprise check took place by the authorities at Lalkhera Stop at 7.15 A.M. where it was found that 19 passengers were travelling without tickets and on the basis of which the petitioner was placed under suspension on 8-6-1988. Being aggrieved against the order of suspension the petitioner preferred writ petition bearing No. 6597/88, which was finally disposed of on 22-8-1988 with the directions to the effect that the charge sheet would be served by the authorities to the petitioner within the period of three weeks from the date of Which the copy of the order is produced before the concerned authorities, the petitioner would submit his reply after two weeks from that date and the enquiry would be completed after a period of three month, provided that the petitioner co-operates with the enquiry and in case the enquiry would not be completed within the period specified, the suspension order would stand revoked. Even before the order was served, the petitioner was served with the charge sheet. The petitioner on 12-9-1988 preferred his reply against the said charge sheet.
(3.) Main thrust of the petitioner in this writ petition is that during the course of the enquiry he demanded the assistance of Mohd. Mushtaq, Conductor to cross-examine the witnesses. Although the enquiry office permitted Mohd. Mushtaq to act as defence assistant to the petitioner, but that assistance was later on denied to him, as a consequence of which he had no option but to leave the disciplinary proceedings and ultimately ex parte order was passed. It was also stated that the Enquiry Officer was biased against the petitioner. No statement of passengers, who were alleged to be travelling without tickets, was ever recorded Enquiry Officer only examined one witness on 3-10-1988. No witnesses were examined on 24-10-1988, 8-1 i-1988 and 22-11-1988 and the whole case was finished on the date 6-12-1988 as desired and contemplated by the Enquiry Officer. Show cause notice was issued on 9-12-1988. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the said show cause notice on 26-12-i988. In the said reply the petitioner complained that he was not afforded reasonable opportunity to explain his case. He was denied on opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. He was also denied the assistance of Bus Conductor Mohd. Mushtaq.;