Vineet Saran, J. - (1.) -The petitioner is a bus conductor in the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation. For an incident alleged to have taken place on 25.10.1989, an enquiry was conducted by the respondent-Corporation. The enquiry report was submitted on 29.12.1999, which was after a gap of more than ten years. The petitioner had been exonerated of all the charges levelled against him. However, nearly two years thereafter, on 27.4.2001 the Regional Manager of the Corporation ordered for re-enquiry in regard to the same incident which had taken place on 25.10.1989. In the second enquiry report, certain charges were found to be partly proved against the petitioner and on the basis of the same, by an order dated 26.2.2002 passed by the Regional Manager of the Corporation, the petitioner was removed from service. Against the said order the petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent No. 2 which has been partly allowed. The order removing the petitioner from the service has been withdrawn and instead, two annual increments of the petitioner have been withheld with a further direction that the petitioner would not be entitled for payment of his salary for the period during which he remained out of service. It is against this order that the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.
(2.) I have heard Sri Harish Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ajai Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Corporation and perused the record. Admittedly the second enquiry report had been called for without there being any cogent reason for the same. Once the petitioner had been exonerated in the earlier enquiry conducted for the same cause, the direction to hold a second enquiry after nearly 12 years of the incident was not justified. However, although disagreeing with the said action of the authorities, without assigning any reason as to which of the charges had been partially proved against the petitioner in the second enquiry report, the appellate authority has imposed the aforementioned punishment. In my view, since the second enquiry had been directed without there being any valid or proper reason for the same, and that too after nearly 12 years of the alleged incident, the same was not justified. Further it has nowhere been stated in the counter-affidavit that ever since the year 1989, when the incident is alleged to have taken place, there was any other incident in which the petitioner had been charged for misconduct or otherwise, although the petitioner continued in service till 26.2.2002. The petitioner having been exonerated in the first enquiry report and the charges having not been proved in the second enquiry report also (which is absolutely clear from the appellate order) in my view there was no justification for imposing any penalty or punishment on the petitioner. Thus, the punishment of withholding two annual increments and refusal to pay salary to the petitioner for the period during which he remained out of service is not justified in the facts and circumstances of this case. This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned order dated 10.3.2003, passed by the appellate authority as well as the order dated 26.2.2002, passed by the Regional Manager of the Corporation are quashed and the petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits.;