SABHAJEET YADAV, J. - (1.) FEELING aggrieved against the order dated 26.7.1990 passed by General Manager, Uttar Pradesh Parivahan Nigam/U.P. Transport Corporation, Meerut, whereby the petitioner was held guilty of negligence constituting misconduct resulting which the Nigam has suffered a loss of Rs. 95,000/ - and half of the amount of loss Rs. 47500/ - suffered by the Nigam has been directed to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 200/ - per month, the petitioner has filed above noted writ petition.
(2.) THE petitioners has come forward with the case, while he was posted as Junior Foreman (Elect) at Garh Depot, Garh Mukteshwar, Ghaziabad, an incident took place in the night of 31.8.89/1 -9 -89 at Garh Depot. The petitioner's duty on that day was from 5 P.M. in the evening till 2 A.M. in the next morning i.e. 2 A.M. of 1.9.1989. A bus U.G.L. 841 coining from Delhi going to Bareilly reached at Garh Depot about 10.30 P.M. on 31.8.1989. The Driver of the vehicle namely Shahamt Khan submitted a report on the out depot defect register. Thereafter the petitioner inspected the bus and he made a note on the same register that bus in question is Layland bus and there were no spare tyres or tools available for Layland bus in the depot in question. However the petitioner's duty was till 2 A.M. in the morning, which was over and the petitioner left out the depot at 2 A.M. immediately after his duty was over. It appears that when the petitioner left out depot after his duty hours, bus caught fire and burnt out. On expiry of few days on 7.9.1989 the petitioner was placed under suspension and on same day a charge sheet was issued and served upon him on 9.9.1989. A departmental disciplinary inquiry was held against him wherein in support of the charges certain witnesses besides the documents had also been examined by the inquiry officer. The petitioner has asked copy of statement of witnesses but same was denied to him but he was permitted to adduce his defence evidence. The petitioner has examined his defence witnesses before inquiry officer. After holding disciplinary inquiry, the inquiry officer submitted report to the disciplinary authority holding the petitioner partly guilty of charges levelled in the charge sheet but Disciplinary Authority disagreed with it and a show cause notice was issued and served upon the petitioner. The petitioner replied the aforesaid show cause notice. After going through the inquiry report and reply submitted by the petitioner the disciplinary authority has passed the impugned order referred herein above. I have heard Sri V.K. Barman for the petitioner and Sri Samir Sharma on behalf of the respondents.
(3.) ON the basis of aforesaid allegations made in the writ petition learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri V.K. Barman has vehemently urged that in given facts and circumstances of the case since the inquiry officer has exonerated the petitioner from a portion of the charge that fire caught to the Bus due to any negligence of the petitioner, to which Disciplinary Authority disagree, therefore, it was obligatory upon him to record his disagreement with cogent reasons to be communicated to the petitioner and further opportunity of hearing was required to be given to him. The Disciplinary Authority did neither give any cogent reason for his disagreement nor give opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He urged that on merits too there is no cogent material to support the allegation levelled against the petitioner. Secondly on the basis of available material on record, there is nothing to show that fire caught to the Bus could be directly attributable to the alleged negligence of petitioner whereas no action has been taken against driver of the bus who has admittedly driven the bus in defective condition and chaukidar of workshop/depot who was to watch the depot, who was also spared from any disciplinary action in this regard.;