Tarun Agarwala - (1.) A checking squad of the U. P. State Roadways Transport Corporation stopped Bus No. U.G.E. 507 on 18.12.1993 and upon checking, found that out of 95 passengers, 48 passengers were travelling without tickets. On the basis of the checking report, the petitioner was suspended on 14.12.1993 and a charge-sheet dated 11.1.1994 was issued. The charges against the petitioner was that 47 persons were travelling without tickets and that the petitioner had manhandled the checking staff and had also incited the passengers, who in turn, misbehaved with the checking staff and that the petitioner indulged in indiscipline and violated the Rules and Regulations of the Corporation. The petitioner denied the allegations and submitted that he was in the process of issuing the tickets when the bus was stopped by the checking staff and, at that stage, he had already issued several tickets. He further submitted that he did not misbehave with the checking staff nor had incited the passengers and, in fact, was instrumental in assuaging the tempers of the passengers. The disciplinary authority found that the reply of the petitioner was not satisfactory, and decided to hold an oral enquiry and appointed an enquiry officer to conduct an enquiry. The enquiry officer conducted the enquiry and submitted a report and found that the petitioner had not done his duty in accordance with the Rules and Regulations and therefore found him guilty of this charge. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner was issuing the tickets at the time when the bus was stopped by the checking squad and that there was some misunderstanding between him, the passengers and the checking staff. The enquiry officer consequently exonerated the petitioner from the remaining charges. The disciplinary authority disagreed with the enquiry report and issued a show cause notice dated 12.8.1994 to the petitioner to show cause why his services should not be dismissed. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply. The disciplinary authority after considering the matter, passed an order of dismissal dated 26.9.94. The petitioner filed a departmental appeal which was dismissed. Consequently, the writ petition praying for the quashing of the impugned orders.
(2.) HEARD Sri Satyanshu Ojha, the learned counsel holding the brief of Sri R. K. Ojha, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sheshadri Dwivedi, the learned counsel holding the brief of Sri Sameer Sharma, the learned counsel for the respondents. A preliminary objection was raised by the learned counsel for the respondents, namely, that the petitioner had a remedy of filing a reference under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act for adjudicating upon the legality and validity of the order of the dismissal, and therefore, submitted that the writ petition should be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. No doubt, the petitioner has a remedy of raising a dispute under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. However since the petition was entertained in the year 1997 and counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged, it would not be proper for the Court to relegate the petitioner to an alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act at this stage, and that too, after a period of almost 10 years. Consequently, the preliminary objection made by the learned counsel for the respondents is rejected.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was exonerated of the charges levelled against him by the enquiry officer except for one charge, which by itself, was not that grievous, warranting an order of dismissal. Further, the disciplinary authority, while disagreeing with the enquiry report did not specify any reason for disagreeing with the enquiry report, nor such reasons were communicated by the disciplinary authority while issuing the show cause notice to the petitioner. Consequently, the show cause notice issued by the disciplinary authority was ex facie illegal. THE learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even in the order of dismissal, no reason had been given by the disciplinary authority for disagreeing with the enquiry report nor the disciplinary authority found that the petitioner was guilty of the charges levelled against him. Consequently, in the absence of any finding that the petitioner was guilty of the charges, the order of the disciplinary authority dismissing the petitioner from the services of the respondents was wholly illegal and was liable to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the disciplinary authority had full power to disagree with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and that he had recorded the reasons for such disagreement while issuing the show cause notice. The learned counsel further submitted that assuming that the disciplinary authority did not give cogent reasons in the show cause notice, the reasons so given were only tentative in nature which, in any case, was supplied by the disciplinary authority in the order of dismissal. The learned counsel for the respondents, therefore submitted, that there was no error in the order of the dismissal and that the same was liable to be confirmed and that the Court should not interfere in the decision of the authority or substitute its decision with the decision of the authority.;