- (1.) DILIP Gupta, J. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 25-11-1983 passed by the Assistant Regional Manager, U. P. State Road Transport Corporation, Banda (hereinafter referred to as the 'corporation') by which the petitioner has been removed from the service of the Corporation and the order dated 2-4- 1984 by which the Appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order was rejected by the Regional Manager, Jhansi.
(2.) THE petitioner was working as a Driver in the Corporation. A charge-sheet dated 31-5-1983 was issued to the petitioner mentioning therein that on 4-1-1983 while he was driving bus No. UTP-3805 on the Rajapur-Karvi route, the checking authorities signalled for stopping the bus but the petitioner did not stop the bus as a result of which the checking authorities were prevented from inspecting the bus which was carrying about 150 passengers. Prior to the issuance of the charge-sheet, the petitioner and the Conductor of the bus Ram Sewak Misra had been placed under suspension by the order dated 5-1-1983. THE petitioner submitted a reply to the charge-sheet but as the same was not found to be satisfactory, the departmental enquiry was initiated against him. THE petitioner was ultimately removed from the service of the Corporation by the order dated 25-11-1983. THE Appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order was also rejected by the order dated 2-4-1984. When the petition was filed, the petitioner had challenged the order dated 25-11-1983 only and it was stated in the petition that the petitioner had been orally intimated a week back that the Appeal filed by him had been rejected. It is only by way of the amendment application that the appellate order dated 2-4-1984 was challenged. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri A. N. Srivastava submitted that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to show-cause against the proposed punishment and nor was the copy of the enquiry report served upon him and, therefore, the order dated 25-11-1983 removing him from service was liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. He further submitted that no opportunity had been granted to the petitioner to lead his defence and nor was he permitted to cross-examine the witnesses and that the appellate order does not give any reason for rejecting the Appeal. Sri Samir Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the Corporation, however, submitted that Regulation 64 of the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Other than Officers) Service Regulation, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1981 Regulation') does not provide for a second show- cause or enquiry report to be served upon the delinquent employee; that as the Enquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority were the same as has been stated by the petitioner in paragraph 6 of the writ petition, it was not necessary to serve a copy of the enquiry report; that adequate opportunity had been granted to the petitioner to lead evidence and to cross-examine the witnesses produced by the Corporation and that it was not necessary for the appellate authority to give detailed reasons once it concurred with the decision of the disciplinary authority.
(3.) I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties. The first contention that has been advanced on behalf of Sri A. N. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that principles of natural justice had been violated as a copy of the enquiry report was not served upon him and in support of this contention he has placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, reported in AIR 1991 SC 471 and R. K. Vashisht v. Union of India & Ors. , 1993 Supp (1) SCC 431.;