- (1.) RAJESH Kumar, J. This writ petition is directed against the judgment and award dated 26-4-2002 passed by Presiding Officer Labour Court, Gorakhpur, which was published on 28-5-2003.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case giving rise to the present petition are that the respondent No. 1 was the employee of the petitioner and was working on the post of conductor attached with Deoria depot. He has been dismissed from the service on the ground that he was conductor of the bus No. UAA-9643 on Lar Deoria route. On 25-10-1994, Traffic Inspector Shri S. N. Tripathi checked the aforesaid bus near Salempur Bale and found that out of 30 passengers, 24 passengers were travelling without ticket and from the blank book a consolidated ticket of 24 passengers was prepared for Rs. 72/ -. The entry of the said tickets was made in road paper and the checking Fdetails were mentioned and after writing the remark in the road paper when Sri S. N. Singh, Assistant Traffic Inspector was going to put his signature, Rajendra Prasad, respondent No. 1 snatched the way-bill and threatened for dire consequences and misbehaved with the checking officer. In the explanation, respondent No. 1 stated that there was no person without ticket when the checking was made at Salempur Bale. The passengers boarded the bus at Salempur and the preparation of the ticket was in process and the checking Inspector has illegally treated them without ticket. He has refused to have given any threatening and misbehaviour. After the enquiry, employee was found guilty and the enquiry officer has given report on 28-3-1995 in which the allegation made against the employee that with the view to destroy the evidence, he had snatched the way-bill to destroy the evidence and had threatened with dire consequence and misbehaved with the checking officer could not be proved. However, rest of the charges were found correct. Sri Ajay Singh, Regional Manager in his order dated 10-4-1995 has stated that the driver of the bus Ram Singhasan Pandey in his letter dated 26-10-1994 has stated that when Rajendra Prasad was asked to sign the way- bill, instead of putting the signature he has snatched the way-bill. He has also stated the same thing in his statement dated 21-3-1993. It has also been stated that on snatching, some of the pages of way-bill were torned and taking into account the seriousness of the charges, dismissed the respondent No. 1. Apart from the amount given towards subsistence allowance, rest of the amount is forfeited. Labour Court vide order dated 6-3-2000 has not found internal enquiry proper and fair has provided opportunity to the parties to prove the charges. Seven charges have been framed against the employee : (1) carrying on the passengers without ticket; (2) to cause loss to the corporation; (3) he snatched away the way-bill from Assistant Traffic Inspector; (4) Non-performance of duty; (5) Threatening to the checking officer and misbehaving; (6) Violation of orders of Conduct Rules ; (7) disobey dance of orders and directions. The Presiding Officer in its order has observed that the enquiry officer has held that snatching of the way-bill, and threatened him for dire consequence to the checking officer and misbehaviour with the inspecting officer are not established but the Regional Manager in its order relying upon the statement of the driver held that there was allegation of snatching of way-bill, as a result of which some of the papers have been torned. Thus, it is established that the way-bill was snatched but the threatening for dire consequence and misbehaviour with the officer are not established. It has been observed that some of the papers might have been torned as a result of exchange of protest but it is not proved that the same has been done to destroy the evidence. The Presiding Officer however, observed that the charge relating to the travelling of 24 passengers without ticket is established. However, while determining the quantum of the punishment, it has been observed that the charge has been partially not established and the employer has suffered loss of Rs. 72/- only and the employee is employed in the services since 1980 and in the earlier checking he was never found guilty. Thus, the removal from the service has been held unjustified. It has been held that two annual increments for two years should be stopped by way of punishment. It has also been held that the employee may not be entitled for the back wages.
(3.) HEARD Sri Ajay Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. K. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1. It may be mentioned here that this Court while entertaining the petition on 23-8-2003 stayed the operation of the impugned award dated 26-4-2002.;