Ravi S.Dhavan - (1.) THE U. P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation, has hied the present writ petition impugning the judgment and order of the U. P. Public Service Tribunals (V), Lucknow dated August, 7, 1987. Annexure 6 to the writ petition.
(2.) THIS matter has been called out in the revised list Learned counsel for the petitioner Corporation in present,, on behalf of respondent no. 2 Mohammad Rizwan the employee concerned, no one has appeared. Brief facts are that respondent no. 2 was deputed to put in a new unloader assembly on Bus noi UTB 224. The particular part which was to be replaced was found to be defective on August 30, 1977. The new part had been issued by the Store and the one which was taken out from the bus was received and deposited with the Store Keeper. The new unloader assembly instead of being put in the bus where It was meant to be installed was put in another vehicle, staff car, no 7458. The new assembly was recovered from the staff car no. 7458 and it was discovered that the old assembly had been fitted on to bus no. UTB 224, when it should have received the new part issued by the stores. The Corporation initiated proceedings for misconduct against respondent no. 2 He was placed under suspension on 1-9-1977. He was issued a charge sheet dated September 19, 1977 along with relevant documents. The documents are not in issue. Respondent no. 2 first raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication as case no. 87 of 1980 to the Labour Courts Vsranasi. By order of June 11, 1991 the Labour Court was of the view that as respondent no. 2. in effect was a government servant, consequently it had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the reference.
(3.) THEREAFTER respondent no. 2 filed a claim petition no. 382/F/B/1981, Mohammad Rizwan v. State of U. P. through the Secretary, Transport Department and others. The U. P. Public Services Tribunal No. V allowed the claim petition, mainly on the ground that (a) Charges have been vaguely described and (b) there is no mention of the oral evidence that was proposed to be led in support of the charges. The order removing respondent no. 2 from service as Assistant Mechanic was quashed and he was allowed to continue in service with consequential benefits of pay and allowances, etc. The corporation had been left with the opportunity to initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings after drawing up a charge sheet in accordance with the Civil Services (Qualification, Control and Appeal) Rules.;