Rakesh Sharma, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been heard and disposed of today in open court for reasons to be recorded later. My reasons for allowing the writ petition are as under.
(2.) HEARD Sri Anil Kumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri G. S. Chauhan, learned Counsel appearing for the opposite parties. The Petitioner, who was working as a conductor in U. P. State Road Transport Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the Corporation, has assailed the order of dismissal passed against him on 31.3.1992 and the subsequent order passed by the appellate authority on 8.10.1992 dismissing the statutory appeal submitted by him. The Petitioner was initially appointed as conductor of City Bus Service, Lucknow, managed by the Corporation. He was regularized in services on 27.5.1982. At the relevant time, the Petitioner was working as conductor in Raebareli Depot of the Corporation. On 12.2.1989, he was deputed to conduct Bus No. UNW -26 operating on Raebareli -Kanpur route. The traffic Inspector of the Corporation gave signal to stop the bus. It was alleged by the authorities of the Corporation that the Petitioner did not show him the way -bill. He was also carrying some passengers without ticket. A departmental enquiry was initiated against the Petitioner and a charge -sheet was issued against him on 29.4.1989. The Petitioner denied the charges by filing his reply to the charge -sheet on 23.5.1989. He had submitted in his reply that he had produced the way -bill before the traffic inspector, checking staff. Sri P. C. Sharma, Traffic Inspector was drunk. Another bus which was plying on the same route had broken down on the road and several passengers of that bus were accommodated in the bus of the Petitioner. The Petitioner indicated this fact to the Traffic Inspector, who was satisfied with the explanation given by the Petitioner. The Petitioner had given details of the passengers. According to him, Bus No. UNW -26 was carrying 72 passengers. Out of them, 26 passengers had boarded the bus at Raebareli. There were 18 roadways employees in the bus, who were holding valid passes for free travelling in the buses of Corporation. In addition to these, 28 passengers of the broken down bus No. 9931 belonging to Raebareli Depot were transferred from that bus to the Petitioner's bus. As per Petitioner, he had demonstrated before the enquiry officer that he was innocent of the charges and was not carrying the passengers without ticket. The enquiry report was submitted on 25.2.1991 and a show cause notice was issued against him. A departmental enquiry was conducted and an order of dismissal was passed against the Petitioner on 31.3.1992 by the Manager, Personnel of the office of General Manager, UPSRTC, Lucknow. Feeling aggrieved, the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Divisional General Manager, who also rejected the same vide order dated 8.10.1992.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner has assailed the departmental enquiry on several grounds. He has laid much stress on the submission that the Petitioner was not carrying passengers without ticket. There were 18 employees of the Corporation, free pass -holders who were travelling in the Petitioner's bus. In addition to these, 28 passengers, who were travelling in broken down Bus No. 9931 of Raebareli Depot, and were stranded on the road, were accommodated in the Petitioner's bus. The enquiry officer and the punishing authority have failed to appreciate these facts. Moreover, several witnesses including the driver had submitted that Sri P. C. Sharma, Traffic Inspector was under the influence of intoxication at the time of checking of the bus. He did not in fact inspect the bus and had indicated to the Petitioner that since the bus was carrying stranded passengers of Bus No. 9931, there was no necessity to count the passengers and make a thorough inspection. The Petitioner had submitted his report to the Traffic Superintendent, Raebareli. The foundation of the Corporation's case is the report of Sri P. C. Sharma, Traffic Inspector, who himself was not in a healthy state of mind at the relevant time. Interestingly, the enquiry officer has concluded in his report dated 25.2.1991 that Sri P. C. Sharma was making inspections of buses while in intoxication. He had made several mistakes while checking the way -bills; he was making wrong notes on the way -bills of the conductors. Sri Anil Kumar has drawn the attention of the Court to the following findings recorded by the enquiry officer in his report: Other Language ???;