Vineet Saran - (1.) -The petitioner, who was a conductor in the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation, was removed from service by order dated 11.7.2000, passed by the Regional Manager of the Corporation. Against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Deputy General Manager of the Corporation on 21.9.2001, against which a further appeal was filed before the Chairman of the Corporation, which was also dismissed on 7.11.2001. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
(2.) I have heard Sri Raj Kumar Jain, senior advocate assisted by Sri Rahul Jain, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri Avanish Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation and have perused the record. The brief facts giving rise to this case are that for having committed certain irregularities and acts of misconduct, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated 28.5.1998, whereby two charges were levelled against him. The first charge was that on 27.11.1997, when the petitioner was conductor of Bus No. UP-50B/1714, it was reported that to avoid checking being done by the inspection team, the bus was stopped about 200-250 yards before the place of checking. When the inspection team rushed to the spot, the petitioner disbursed the passengers from the bus so that the checking could not be done properly. However, certain irregularities were still found in the issuance of the tickets to the passengers. Further, it was also alleged that the petitioner insulted the checking staff and used unparliamentary language and created hindrances in their work. The second charge was that on 28.4.1998, when the petitioner was the conductor of Bus No. UML 9129, checking was done on the route and it was found that certain passengers were without tickets and to certain other passengers, short distance tickets had been issued. Certain other irregularities were also found in issuing tickets to the passengers. He was thus charged with having caused financial loss to the Corporation. Enquiry was conducted in the matter and a detailed report was submitted in which, although it was stated that the charge of misbehaving with the inspection party and using unparliamentary language was not proved, but in the enquiry report, the petitioner was found guilty of both the charges relating to irregularities committed by him. A notice was issued to the petitioner on 26.11.1999, requiring him to show cause why he should not be removed from service, to which a reply was filed on 9.3.2000. After considering the enquiry report and the explanation given to the show cause notice, the respondent No. 3, Regional Manager of the Corporation, passed the impugned order removing the petitioner from service. The appeals filed by the petitioner were also dismissed.
(3.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the allegation that the petitioner had misbehaved with the checking staff and had used unparliamentary language had not been accepted by the Enquiry Officer, as such, in case if the petitioner was to be punished on the basis of the enquiry report, he should have been given opportunity by the disciplinary authority before disagreeing with the finding of the Enquiry Officer. In support of this contention Sri Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, has placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court rendered in Vakil Chand Jain v. Central Bank of India and others, 1995 (70) FLR 399. In my view, the ratio of the said judgment does not apply to the present case as the two main charges against the petitioner with regard to having committed irregularities had been proved and the petitioner had been found guilty of the same. THE disciplinary authority imposed the punishment after considering the said findings of the Enquiry Officer on the main charges as well as the explanation/reply to the show cause notice given by the petitioner. As such the same cannot be said to be unreasonable as the charges of irregularities had been proved. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that since besides the said two incidents, the service record of the petitioner was unblemished, as such the punishment given to the petitioner was very harsh. In my view, in the acts of the present case, the said submission also does not have much force. From perusal of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent-Corporation, it is clear that earlier also, on several occasions, the conduct of the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory and he was also awarded punishment for such misconducts. In paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit it has been stated that one annual increment of the petitioner had been withheld by order dated 30.12.1999 as the petitioner was found to have permitted the carrying of 500 kgs. of unbooked luggage in the bus of which he was conductor. On 14.10.1999 also, the bus, of which he was conductor, did not stop when signalled to do so by the checking staff. On 24.9.1999, when the petitioner was conductor of Bus No. UHX-464, nine passengers were found without tickets for which charge-sheet had also been issued to him but because in the meantime, the impugned order removing him from service had been passed, no further action could be taken. In another incident on 10.6.2000, fourteen passengers were found to be travelling without tickets in the bus of which the petitioner was conductor. Earlier, in an incident of misconduct, after enquiry, the petitioner was found guilty and by order dated 30.6.1995, passed by the Regional Manager, he was removed from service. However, in appeal the petitioner was reinstated on a token salary of Re. 1 per month and his four annual increments with cumulative effect were withheld. As such the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that his past conduct was unblemished and thus the punishment of removal from service was very grave also does not have force. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court rendered in U. P. State Road Transport Corporation and another v. Mahesh Kumar Mishra, 2000 (2) AWC 1475 (SC) : (2000) 3 SCC 450, wherein it has been held that in case if the punishment awarded was shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct of which the employee was found guilty, the Courts could interfere with the quantum of punishment. In the present case, looking to the record of the petitioner, as he had repeatedly indulged in acts of misconduct which also caused financial loss to the respondent-Corporation, and has now again been found guilty of both the charges framed against him, which are of serious nature, in my opinion, the punishment awarded to the petitioner cannot be said to be disproportionate, much less shockingly disproportionate so as to move the conscience of the Court.;