- (1.) HEARD Sri Gopal Narain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashish Joshi, learned counsel for the respond ents.
(2.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for the fol lowing reliefs: i. To issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 12-10-2004 and order dated 20-06-2005 (annexure 3and5 respectively) passed by respondent nos. 1and3, ii. To pass such order which this Hon'ble Court deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, iii. To award the cost against the re spondents in favour of the petitioner. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed as Conductor in U. P. State Road Transport Corporation in the year 1980 and since then he was working on the said post. On 24th April 1995, the Traffic Super intendent made a complaint against the petitioner to the Assistant Regional Manager, Dehradun complaining that the petitioner was carrying Bus No. UGY 877 and at the time when the bus was checked by the Traffic Superintend ent, 23 passengers were found without tickets and the Checking Authority is sued the tickets to the passengers after charging penalty. On 27-04-1995, the petitioner was suspended. The charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner, to which the petitioner replied. The En quiry Officer having heard to the peti tioner as also to the respondent and after going through the documents re corded a finding that the charges lev elled against the petitioner on the basis of complaint of the Traffic Superin tendent are not proved. This finding was recorded by the Enquiry Officer on 19-07-1996 and the same was submit ted to the Disciplinary Authority on the same day. The Disciplinary Authority, disa greeing with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, found the delin quent official guilty of the charges and issued show cause notice on 04-03-2002 directing the petitioner why the balance amount for the period of sus pension be not forfeited and also why he be not removed from the services. The petitioner replied to the show cause notice and vide order dated 12- 10-2004, the Regional Manager, Uttaranchal Transport Corporation Ltd. Dehradun/respondent no. 1 dismissed the petitioner from services and also forfeited the salary for the period dur ing which the petitioner was under sus pension.
(3.) AGGRIEVED with the order dated 12-10-2004 of the Regional Manager, Uttaranchal Transport Corporation, the petitioner preferred writ petition no. 336 (ss) 2005 which was disposed of on 06-04- 2005 on the ground of alternative remedy that the petitioner has remedy by way of filing appeal before the Man aging Director. Consequently, the peti tioner preferred appeal against the aforesaid order of Regional Manager, Uttaranchal Transport Corporation, Dehradun dated 12-10-2004 before the respondent no. 3 which has also been dismissed by the respondent no. 3 vide its order dated 20-06- 2005. AGGRIEVED with these orders passed by the Re gional Manager as well as the Manag ing Director, the petitioner filed this writ petition. During the course of argument, the petitioner has pressed only one ground that the order dated 12- 10-2004 passed by the Regional Manager, Uttaranchal Transport Corporation is il legal, because, though the findings were recorded by the Enquiry officer in fa vour of the petitioner but the Regional Manager, while disagreeing with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Of ficer, has not afforded any opportunity of hearing to the 'petitioner before pass ing the impugned order.;