- (1.) Narvadeshwar Prasad is before this Court assailing the validity of the order dated 26.04.2016 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.18430/2016 (Narvadeshwar Prasad vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and others), wherein learned Single Judge has proceeded to dismiss the writ petition in question on the ground that petitioner-appellant should avail the remedy of approaching industrial adjudicator.
(2.) Brief background of the case is that petitioner-appellant has been performing and discharging duties as a conductor with U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and allegations have come forward that petitioner-appellant's Bus No.UP53T/00046 was checked by Traffic Superintendent alongwith Traffic Inspector Ashok Singh and Nagendra Pratap Singh, Assistant Traffic Inspector on 25.03.2014, leaving Koyaldar Dhani at 6.00 P.M. at the said point of time 67 passengers were sitting in the bus and seven passengers were found without ticket and they were issued 01 consolidated ticket for Rs.490+Rs.3500 as penalty and for the same petitioner-appellant was suspended by Assistant Regional Manager vide order dated 26.03.2014 followed by charge-sheet dated 08.05.2014. Petitioner-appellant submitted reply to the said charge-sheet in question and thereafter the inquiry in question proceeded and in the said inquiry Hari Shankar Pandey appeared and proved the report in question that has been so prepared by him in respect of inspection that has been so carried out on 25.03.2014 and on the said date, the said report has been produced alongwith way bill. The petitioner-appellant proceeded to cross-examine Hari Shankar Pandey and only proceeded to put two questions (i) as to whether he has checked his cash and the reply that was given was 'No'; (ii) as to whether statement of passengers were taken. The reply was 'Yes they have given oral statement and not in writing and the said fact has been mentioned in the report'. In the said inquiry, the petitioner-appellant proceeded to mention that his reply be considered as his last statement and he does not intent to produce any witness and he does not intent to cross-examine any witness and he is fully satisfied with the inquiry. Thereafter from the record in question this much is reflected that a show cause notice was issued to him as to why he should not be removed from service. The petitioner-appellant submitted his reply and in the said reply in question, that has been so submitted, he has proceeded to make a mention that the Inquiry Officer had not produced Ashok Singh, Traffic Inspector and Nagendra Pratap Singh Assistant Traffic Inspector and at no point of time, on the explanation that has been so furnished, any serious consideration has been made and further petitioner-appellant requested that those two incumbents should be inquired and the petitioner-appellant should be given opportunity of hearing. The Disciplinary Authority, thereafter, has considered the same and has found the petitioner-appellant guilty and order of dismissal has been passed. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner-appellant has preferred appeal and the said appeal in question has been rejected. Thereafter, after dismissal of the said appeal in question, Writ Petition no.69032 of 2015 has been preferred and same has been disposed of by relegating the petitioner-appellant to file revision under the regulation and then revision in question has been preferred and same has also been dismissed. Against the said orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority, Appellant Authority and the Revising Authority, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.18430 of 2016 has been filed and same has been dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.
(3.) Shri Bhupendra Nath Singh, Counsel for petitioner-appellant submitted that in the present case reasonable opportunity of hearing has not been provided to the appellant and as such, the petitioner-appellant ought not to have been relegated to avail alternative remedy of approaching the Industrial Tribunal and the said remedy is not at all equal and efficacious remedy and on merits the order of punishment is per-se bad being in contravention of principle of natural justice.;