S.K.Singh, J. - (1.) Challenge in this petition arc the orders dated 31.7.1998 (Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition), 11.10.2000 (Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition) and 30.5.2001 (Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition), passed by the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 respectively. By the order dated 31.7.1998, referred above, the Disciplinary Authority removed the petitioner from service, which has been confirmed in appeal and revision by the other two orders, referred above.
(2.) For the purpose of decision brief facts can be summarised thus. The petitioner had been working as Conductor in the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, herein after referred to as the Corporation. Petitioner claims that he was allotted duty on 22.9.1996 for running with the bus from Lalganj to Delhi and Delhi to Lalganj and thereafter from Bahraich to Lalganj to Allahabad and thus after completing three days continuous duty petitioner was to take rest at his quarter as he was not feeling well and was suffering with serious headache. It is said that although the petitioner was to be allowed double duty rest but on account of non-availability of any Conductor to proceed with the bus from Lalganj-Allahabad-Faizabad-Bahraich, on 25,9.1996 at about 4.30 p.m, he was forced to go to Allahabad. Petitioner showed his inability to do the duty but he was assured that some other Conductor will be provided from Pratapgarh but as no body was available petitioner has to continue in the bus. It is stated that there were 59 passengers in the bus when it started from Prataptgarh to Allahabad but as there was severe headache and physical ailment petitioner committed mistake in issuing tickets to the passengers. The bus appears to have been checked near Mauaima at 6.15 p.m., by the checking staff of the Corporation and on finding certain irregularities checking report was prepared and was submitted to the Assistant Regional Manager, Pratapgarh Depot. Thereafter petitioner was placed under suspension. Charge-sheet was issued to him. Enquiry proceeded. On submission of the Enquiry Report the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to pass the order of petitioner's removal from service which stood confirmed in appeal and revision in the higher forum. It is these orders which arc under challenge before this Court.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has not committed any financial irregularity as it is a case of certain incorrect entry in the way bill and not issuing proper tickets and thus the impugned order of removal from service cannot be sustained. It is further submitted that the explanation given by the petitioner has not been properly considered and examined either by the Enquiry Officer or by the Disciplinary Authority and even by the Appellate/Revisional Authority and therefore, on the facts, the finding of misconduct on the part of the petitioner is totally perverse. It is argued that petitioner has established that he discharged continuous duty for about three days and thus on the date of incident he was entitled for double duty rest but he was compelled to join the bus from Lalganj in the express bus service i.e., Lalganj-Pratapgarh-Bahraich on the pretext that in Pratapgarh some other conductor will be provided. Although the petitioner was suffering from severe mental headache which he informed to the staff who came to the petitioner to compel him to join the bus but even then petitioner was compelled to proceed for duty and therefore, on account of his mental disbalance and physical ailment, irregularity in the. way bill and issuing the ticket happened. It is submitted that all these aspects have not been taken into account and all the authorities without assigning reason to disagree with the explanation given by the petitioner in an arbitrary manner agreed to the findings of the Enquiry Officer and has passed the impugned order. In support of the submission that if the decision by the Disciplinary Authority and its confirmation by the Higher Authority is without assigning any reason to disagree with the explanation of the petitioner, it amounts to non-speaking order, which is to be termed to be in violation of principles of natural justice, reliance has been placed on decisions given in the case of Prem Prakash Misra v. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Ors., (1994) 2 UPLBEC 1047 and Smt. Kamlesh Saxena v. U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission, Allahabad and Ors., (1999) 3 UPLBEC 2133. In support of the submission that for technical omission of not entering some of the tickets in the way bill punishment of removal from service is not justified, reliance has been placed on the case of Ram Babu Guptav. U.P.S.R.T.C. and Ors., reported in (1999) 3 UPLBEC 2175.;