Tarun Agarwala, J. - (1.) THE petitioner was working -as a conductor in U.P. State Roadways Transport Corporation, Ballia. On 25.8.1988 a surprise checking Was conducted by the checking staff, headed by Assistant Regional Manager on bus No. UHN 0969. The Assistant Regional Manager found a lot of irregularities committed by the conductor. Initially the conductor refused to handover the way bill nor permitted the checking staff to check the number of passengers or the number of tickets issued to mem. The conductor also abused the Assistant Regional Manager and its checking staff. A report was submitted by the Assistant Regional Manager on the basis of which a charge -sheet dated 21.10.1992 was issued against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a reply which was not found satisfactory and consequently an Inquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the domestic inquiry. The Inquiry Officer gave full opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself and after examining the witnesses submitted the inquiry report in which he found that the petitioner was guilty of all the charges. On receipt of the inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority issued a show cause notice and upon receiving the explanation passed an order dated 17.3.1993 removing the petitioner from the service: Aggrieved by the order of removal,, the petitioner filed an appeal, which was rejected by order dated 19.2.1994. Aggrieved, the petitioner has now filed the present writ petition.
(2.) HEARD Sri B.N. Tewari, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Avanish Mishra for the respondents. Admittedly, the charges which were levelled against the petitioner and which had been proved in the domestic inquiry was that out of 49 passengers, 39 passengers were travelling without tickets and that the petitioner created obstructions and placed hurdles upon the checking team and misbehaved with them.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been prejudiced by the non -production of a passenber as a witness in the domestic inquiry who had given a statement with regard to the incident, namely, the conduct of the petitioner with the checking staff and non -issuance of the tickets to the passengers and also his misbehaviour. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the non -production of this witness during the inquiry proceedings has prejudiced him and that in the absence of this witness, his statement could not be relied upon. In support of his submission the petitioner has relied upon. [State of U.P. v. Mohd. Sharif (Dead) through L. Rs., AIR (1982) SC 376; Kashinath Dikshita v. Union of India and Ors. ; State of U.P. v. Shatrughan Lal and Anr. and Kuldeep Singh v. The Commissioner of Police and Ors. ];