S.K. Singh, J. - (1.) BY means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 19.4.2001 (Annexure -6 to the writ petition) as has been passed by respondent No. 2 by which, the petitioner has been removed from service.
(2.) FOR the purpose of convenient understanding, the facts in brief, can be summarised as thus. The petitioner who has been working as Conductor in U.P.S.R.T.C., Zero Board, Depot, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) was served with the charge -sheet on 23.9.1997. It is mentioned in the charge -sheet that on 4.9.1997, he misbehaved Sri Jawahar Lal, the Assistant Traffic Inspector in the Corporation at about 8.15 a.m. near Zero Road Bus Station Canteen. It is mentioned that the aforesaid misconduct was a result of annoyance of the petitioner as on 29.8.1997, he was caught by Sri Jawahar Lal aforesaid while taking ten passengers without tickets. The charge -sheet was replied by the petitioner on 20.12.1997. Thereafter, on 1.9.1998, report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer pursuant to which on 8.9.1998 notice was issued to the petitioner proposing punishment of removal from service. On receipt of the show cause notice the petitioner moved application on 15.9.1998 (Annexure -4 to the writ petition) through which it was prayed that incomplete enquiry report has been supplied to him as with the report, no statement of any witness/cross -examination has been given and, therefore, whatever evidence has been collected in the enquiry may also be supplied with the enquiry officers' report. It is said that although nothing was received by the petitioner but on 9.1.1999 (Annexure -5 to the writ petition) he submitted his detailed reply. It appears that in respect to another incident/charge, the petitioner was removed from service on 30.1.1999 but thereafter, the higher authority on being satisfied with the petitioner's appeal/ representation by order dated 21/26.6.2000 re -instated the petitioner by giving minor punishment of stoppage of five annual increments. Thereafter, on 11.12.2000, the petitioner was asked to submit fresh detailed reply to the show cause notice referred above. The petitioner appears to have again submitted his reply on 7.2.2001 in which again he reiterated the facts and stand as were stated in the earlier reply dated 9.1.1999 (Annexure -5 to the writ petition). On completion of the aforesaid, respondent No. 2 appears to have taken a final decision by the impugned order dated 19.4.2001 (Annexure -6 to the writ petition) by which the petitioner has been removed from service. It is against the order of respondent No. 2 referred above, the petitioner has come up to this Court by means of this writ petition. Parties' learned counsel have been heard at length and pleadings as are on record, have been examined. As jointly requested, the matter has been heard on merits and is being finally decided.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of removal of the petitioner from service besides being illegal, arbitrary, is based on consideration of non -existent facts and in fact, there is absolutely no corroborative evidence in respect to charges levelled against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the respondents have also taken into account earlier misconduct of the petitioner upon which, he was ordered to be removed from service on 30.1.1999 and also alleged incident dated 8.3.2001 of taking nine passengers without tickets and thus the respondent No. 2 on the finding that the petitioner appears to be involved in series of misconduct and he is habitual one his continuance in service is not in the interest of Corporation which is factually incorrect has passed the impugned order. It is argued that as the impugned order amounts to major punishment, the charges being not supported by any corroborative evidence, the order cannot be sustained. It is further argued that petitioner has not been given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself as alongwith show cause notice, no evidence was supplied and further the respondents having taken into consideration, the non -existent facts and the charges of misconduct dated 8.3.2001 to which the petitioner has no opportunity to defend and punishment being disproportionate, same is liable to be quashed.;