- (1.) RAKESH Sharma, J. Heard Mohd. Mansoor Ahmad, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mahesh Chandra, learned Counsel for the U. P. S. R. T. C.
(2.) UNDER the challenge is an order dated 24-8-1998 by which the petitioner, a Bus conductor belonging to Faizabad Depot of U. P. S. R. T. C. was dismissed from the services as a result of inquiry. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner. A charge-sheet dated 15-2-1996 was issued against him to which he has replied. After considering the reply, the Inquiry Officer has submitted the report against the petitioner. Thereafter a show-cause notice was issued against him on 15-5-1998 alongwith the Inquiry Officer's report. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show-cause notice on 9-6-1998 and thereafter he was dismissed from the services on 24-8-1998. The petitioner had preferred an appeal, which was also rejected on 30-4-1999. Mohd. Mansoor Ahmad, learned Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the inquiry on the main ground that the Inquiry Officer's report does not contain the reasons, grounds for arriving at the conclusions drawn by the said officer. A bare perusal of the Enquiry Officer's report reveals that immediately after considering the charge-sheet and reply of the petitioner, the Inquiry Officer has arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of the charges. The conclusions recorded are as follows :
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards Sub-clause 4 of Regulation 64 as contained in U. P. S. R. T. C. E. S. Regulations, 1981. THE procedure for holding departmental inquiry and punishment is provided in Regulation 64. THE relevant Sub-clause 4 of Regulation 64 is quoted below : " (4) THE proceedings shall contain sufficient record of evidence and the statement of finding and grounds thereof. THE Enquiry Officer may also separately from the proceedings, make his own recommendation regarding the penalty to be imposed. THE proceedings and the record shall be forwarded to the appointing authority. " The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the inquiry has not been conducted in accordance with the aforementioned regulation. The Inquiry Officer has not given his reasons and discussed the evidences available on record. The grounds for forming opinion that the charges were found proved were not indicated. It appears that the whole inquiry was conducted with a pre- determined mind and the Inquiry Officer has pre-judged the issues. It is evident from the record that Sri B. B. Singh, the author of the report dated 6-2-1996 (a witness of prosecution) did not appear before the Inquiry Officer to prove his report dated 6-2-1996 which was used by the Inquiry Officer for finding the charges proved against the petitioner.;