S.Rafat Alam, Sudhir Aqarwal, JJ. - (1.) This is an intra court appeal under the Rules of the Court against the judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 21069 of 1990 allowing the writ petition of the petitioner respondent.
(2.) It appears that a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner respondent in respect of charge of negligence constituting misconduct on account of which the appellant No. 1 has suffered a loss of Rs. 95000/-. Consequently, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 7.9.1989 and was served with a charge sheet, a copy whereof is enclosed as Annexure-1 to the affidavit filed in support of the stay application. From a perusal thereof it is evident that the allegations against the petitioner respondent, in brief, that when he was working as Junior Foreman (Electrical) in Garh Depot, tyre of Bus No. UGL 841 of Bareilly Depot burst while going to Delhi. The driver, therefore, brought the bus to the workshop at Garh at about 10.30 PM and requested the petitioner respondent to take remedial steps, but he instead of taking any step, directed the driver to take help from Bareilly Depot. The driver, therefore, left the bus in the workshop in Garh and went to Bareilly. However, in the workshop the tyre of the bus, on account of heat, caught fire. By the time fire was extinguished, damage to the extent of Rs. 95000/- had caused to the bus. The petitioner respondent refuted allegations vide reply dated 28.9.1989 claiming to be not guilty of charges stating that the bus of Bareilly Depot came in the night at about 10.30 PM on 31.8.1989. The driver of the bus reported that its two tyres are burst. His further defence was that the bus in question being Leyland Bus, its tyres were not available in the depot and, therefore, he entered the fact in the register and instructed the driver to take help from Bareilly Depot. The instruction was also mentioned in the duty slip of the driver. The bus was thereafter parked in the depot and the petitioner respondent left the depot at about 2 AM after his duty time was over. It has also been said that so long he was on duty till 2 AM, the bus did not caught fire nor there was any smell of burning of tyre. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner respondent is partly guilty of charges. However, the disciplinary authority disagreed with the opinion of the enquiry officer, hence issued show cause notice which was replied by the petitioner respondent. The disciplinary authority thereafter passed the order dated 26.7.1990 holding him guilty of negligence constituting misconduct on account of which the Corporation has suffered loss of Rs. 95000/- and ordered for recovery of half of the amount of loss, i.e. Rs. 47,500/- from the salary of the petitioner respondent. It is this order which was impugned in the writ petition.
(3.) The Hon'ble Single Judge having perused the record and having heard learned Counsel for the parties, found that the finding of the disciplinary authority is based on irrelevant consideration, imagination and not on relevant material on record, hence based on surmises and conjectures, and thus, being perverse, cannot be accepted. It has further been held by the Hon'ble Single Judge that the loss caused to the Corporation cannot be directly attributable to the alleged negligence of the petitioner-respondent and, therefore, he cannot be held guilty of such negligence amounting to misconduct.;