Dilip Gupta, J. - (1.) This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 1st February, 1989 passed by the Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation') by which the petitioner who was working as the Assistant Cashier in Varanasi Depot of the Corporation was removed from service. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 15th December, 1989 by which the appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order dated 1st February, 1989 was rejected by the Deputy General Manager of the Corporation.
(2.) While the petitioner was working as the Assistant Cashier a Charge Sheet dated 7th February, 1987 was issued and he was also suspended. A perusal of the Charge Sheet indicates that between 1983 to 1986 the petitioner had embezzled an amount of Rs. 46,758.36 on various dates and when this was pointed out to him, he deposited the said amount on different dates in the year 1986. Along with the charge sheet, the petitioner was supplied copies of the reports dated 18th November, 1985, 2nd March, 1986, 17th January, 1986 and 31st March, 1986 submitted by Sri R.K. Srivastava, Senior Auditor and the report dated 21st November, 1985, 3rd January, 1986, 10th January, 1986, 22nd January, 1986, 9th December, 1986, 30th December, 1986 and 31st January, 1986 submitted by Sri R.R. Prajapati, Regional Auditor. It was also mentioned that the petitioner could inspect the receipts and cash book on any working day. The petitioner was also called upon to submit his written statement and in case he wanted to examine himself or any other witness then he was required to clearly intimate the department in writing. The petitioner submitted his written statement. The enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer who submitted his report dated 17th December, 1988 to the Disciplinary Authority. A show-cause notice dated 24th December, 1988 was then sent to the petitioner enclosing a copy of the enquiry report. The petitioner was asked to show cause as to why he should not be removed from the service. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the said show-cause notice. The Regional Manager of the Corporation then passed the order dated 1st December, 1989 removing the petitioner from the service of the Corporation. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order of removal was rejected by the Deputy General Manager of the Corporation by the order dated 15th December, 1989.
(3.) Sri P.S. Baghel, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Corporation had not suffered any pecuniary loss as the petitioner had deposited the amount which was said to have been embezzled by him; that due to heavy work load on the petitioner, which fact has also been admitted by the officers of the Corporation the petitioner may have committed a mistake in not depositing the amount but such mistakes do happen and it cannot be said that the petitioner had embezzled the amount; that the petitioner had not been given any opportunity to examine the witnesses; that the petitioner had not been permitted to cross-examine Sri Bhola Nath Mishra, Sri S.K. Banerji, Sri S.B. Jain and Sri H.P. Gupta; that the documents mentioned in the application dated 24th December, 1988 had not been supplied to the petitioner; that no oral evidence was led by the Corporation and that the Deputy General Manager by a cryptic order dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.;