Rakesh Tiwari - (1.) -The case is taken in the revised list. Counsel for the parties are present. No rejoinder-affidavit has been filed by the petitioner inspite of time having been granted. Since the case is listed peremptorily today, it is being heard and determined.
(2.) THE facts of the case are that the petitioner joined the service of the respondent corporation in 1979 and was working as a bus conductor. He was suspended on 10.10.1993 for unauthorisedly and forcibly assuming charge of the passenger bus and issued tickets on 5.10.1993. He was, thereafter, awarded punishment of removal/dismissal from service on 5.2.1994 passed by the Regional Manager U.P.S.R.T.C., Allahabad. Aggrieved by the order of removal/dismissal from service, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 28533 of 1996 before this Court, which was allowed by judgment dated 19.3.1998 directing the respondents to conduct a fresh enquiry regarding the misconduct in accordance with law in the light of the observations contained in the body of the judgment. It was left open to the Corporation to consider and pass a speaking order as to whether the petitioner should be reinstated during the pendency of enquiry proceedings or not. As regards payment of back wages, salary and other service benefits were concerned, it was directed that the same would depend upon the ultimate result of the enquiry. The relevant extract of the judgment and order dated 19.3.1998 is as under : "The petitioner should be given an opportunity to participate in the proceedings and if the Corporation on fresh enquiry finds that actually the petitioner was guilty suitable punishment may be given to him but it cannot be said here in this Court that the petitioner was innocent and he should be out right exonerated. The only remedy which remains open to the petitioner is that he should face both the enquiries and charges against him. He may challenge the charges and may contest the charges levelled against him but in this petition he cannot be said to be not guilty or innocent. The writ petition is hereby allowed. The enquiry report dated 24.11.1993 and 13.12.1993 and the consequent punishment orders dated 5.2.1994 are hereby set aside. Consequently the appellate order dated 31.7.1995 and the revisional order dated 5.12.1995 are also hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to conduct a fresh enquiry regarding both the misconducts in accordance with law and also the observations as contained in the body of the judgment. It shall remain open to the Corporation to consider and pass a speaking order whether the petitioner should be reinstated during the enquiry or not. As regards the payment of back wages and salary and other service benefits shall as depend upon the ultimate result of the enquiry. However, there is no direction of this Court whether the petitioner should be reinstated and given back wages and salary etc. of the earlier period or not. It is upto the Corporation to pass suitable orders according to their own description."
(3.) THE counsel for the petitioner has referred to order of the Regional Manager dated 1.11.2004 appended as Annexure-10 to the writ petition and submits that the petitioner had not misbehaved with any person. He was on duty on that date and was directed by his superior officer to conduct a spare bus No. 9994 at 9.30 a.m. THE action of the petitioner to insist for conducting the bus was neither unauthorized nor he was forcibly wanted to do the duty of conductor. It is urged that from Annexure-10, it is evident that the petitioner was working as conductor in pursuance of lawful orders of superior officers, as the staff of the spare bus has not come on duty till their reporting time at 9.00 a.m. The counsel for the petitioner submits that it is evident from the order of the Regional Manager that the petitioner was on duty on bus No. 9994 and that insisting to do duty was not a misconduct of a very serious nature and as such punishment of removal/dismissal from service awarded to him was highly disproportionate to the charge and was liable to be interfered with. It is stated that the Regional Manager after considering the facts and circumstances ordered for reinstatement of the petitioner and substituted the punishment of removal/dismissal from service to punishment of stoppage of three increments without future effect and would also not be entitled to wages of the suspension period.;