- (1.) D. K. Seth, J. On the ground that the petitioner, a Conductor working in the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation (here in after referred to as U. P. S. R. TC.) had issued tickets for shorter distance to '12' pas sengers and there by embezelled a sum of 0. 45 paise each aggregating to Rs. 5. 40 paise on 18-4-1986 while on duty a charge-sheet was issued on 23-4-1987 (Annexure-1 to the petition ). Despite petitioner's request to supply documents containing the report no copy of those documents were supplied to him. On the other hand second chargesheet was issued on 23-4-1987 (Annexure-3 to the petition) to the petitioner in connection with an incidence dated 18-10-1986 alleging that the petitioner was travelling in the bus while sitting on bonnet of the bus and the petitioner again booked passengers for shorter distance on the basis of the report of Sri B. S. Agarwal. Despite the petitioner's request the report of Sri Agarwal was also not supplied to him. Even before the In quiry Officer despite the petitioner's demand neither copy of those documents were supplied nor inspection there of. was allowed to him. However the petitioner sub mitted his reply (Annexure-5 to the peti tion ). Pursuant to the said inquiry by an order dated 1-2- 1990 (Annexure-7 to the petition) the petitioner was removed from his service. The said order dated 1- 2-1990 having been challenged by means of a Writ Petition before this Court. The said writ petition was dismissed by an order dated 8-2-1990 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) passed in Writ Petition No. "nil" of 1990 on the ground of alternative remedy by way of appeal. The petitioner's appeal was, how ever, rejected by order dated 19-9-1990 (Annexure-10 to the petition ). It is these two orders dated 1-2-1990 and 19-9-1990 being Annexures-7 and '10' to the petition, respectively, have Been challenged by means of present writ petition.
(2.) THE U. P. S. R. TC. in its counter-af fidavit had alleged that after the incident dated 18-4-1986 when the petitioner was found to have short booked '12' passengers the petitioner was again caught red-handed on 18-10-1986 for carrying '12' passengers again booked for a shorter distance and for mis-behaviour with the checking authorities. In the process of inquiry the petitioner was given full opportunity of being heard. After having considered the material produced before the Inquiry Of ficer the petitioner was found guilty in the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer. A copy where of was supplied to the petitioner requiring him to show cause against the proposed punishment of termination of his services. After considering the said reply the petitioner was removed from service by an order dated 1-2-1990. It was further alleged that the petitioner's services were once ter minated earlier on account of embezzelment and misappropriation but on appeal he was allowed fresh opportunity by retain ing him in service. THErefore in the year 1968 the services of the petitioner was again terminated oil the charges of corruption proved against him. THE petitioner was again given opportunity in the year 1969 by means of him re-employment in service. Subsequently, there after the petitioner's service was again terminated in the year 1973 on the charges of corruption. But then there having been strike the petitioner was inducted in service once again on 20-2-1973. Thus it appears that he was a man of doubt ful integrity. Two charge-sheets dated 18-4-1986 And 18-10-1986 were issued to him and in the inquiry he was found guilty after the petitioner was furnished all the relevant documents and the petitioner was afforded full opportunity to show cause to the said inquiry. After considering his reply the petitioner's service was terminated. THE said order has been affirmed in the appeal. It is further contended that the petitioner being a workman with in meaning of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, he had an alter native remedy before the forum under In dustrial Disputes Act. THErefore the writ petition is not maintainable. The petitioner in the rejoinder-af fidavit has reiterated the case made out in the writ petition and has contended that the petitioner was re-instated in service by vir tue of an order of the Labour Court, being Annexure-RAI to the rejoinder-affidavit, dated 19-8-1983. Sri H. M Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assails the impugned order contained in An nexure-7 to the writ petition on the ground that though the incident had taken place on 18-4-1986 but the same was reported only on 23-4-1987. Therefore, the first charge-sheet can not be sustained. Secondly, he contends that since the document required by the petitioner was not supplied and in spection there of having been denied, the inquiry proceeding is vitiated. The third contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner was that the persons short booked have not been examined. The last contention of Sri Srivastava was that even if the finding of the inquiry is proved even then on the face of material on record the punishment appears to be dis-propor-tionate. On these grounds he assails the order dated 1-2-1990 as well as the order dated 19-9-1990 by which his appeal was dismissed.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing on be half of U. P. S. R. TC. on the other hand con tends that the authority while terminating the services of the petitioner had considered all extenuating circumstances. The ap praisal of the situation by the authority is an administrative decision having quasijudi cial texture on the basis of facts and cir cumstances of the case depending on the assessment of the materials available on record, which is purely a question of finding of fact, with which this Court, in normal circumstances, does not interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The relationship of master and servants between the employer and employee is dependent on faith and confidence. Even if the amount embezzeled is insignificant even then the loss of con fidence and faith in the employee would be sufficient to discontinue his service by the employer. Further more the finding of fact having been confirmed in appeal after con current finding of fact this Court should not interfere with the same. Lastly, he contends vehemently that this is the case which can be decided only by scanning of the evidence relating to the finding of fact and the ap propriate remedy is before the forum estab lished under the Industrial Disputes Act which is efficacious alternative remedy. In view of existence of such alternative remedy the writ petition is not maintainable. Before deciding the question raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner it is desirable to decide the preliminary objec tion raised by the learned Counsel for the Corporation at the outset. Admittedly, the petitioner is a workman subject to the In dustrial Disputes Act. His services having been terminated pursuant to the inquiry, the remedy open to him is before the forunv established under the Industrial Disputes Act, the subject-matter in issue can be bet ter decided in the said forum which can go into facts and the parties might have better opportunity to espouse their respective causes. The said remedy is an afficacious alternative remedy, in the facts and cir cumstances of the case, this Court can not go into the question of fact which would be necessitated for the purposes of deciding this case. Therefore, ordinarily this Court would refuse to exercise its. discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution, to entertain the writ petition when alternative remedy by way of dispute before the Industrial Tribunal is available to the petitioner. There can not be any two opinion about the same. Admittedly the present case is a fit case to be decided by the tribunal. But because of the facts that a very long time has lapsed namely over six years, it is not desirable that the matter should go back to the Tribunal for decision particularly, in view of the fact that the petitioner would have superannuated in 1992. At the initial stage this Court having not been declined to entertain the petition and the same having been directed to be listed for admission and counter and rejoinder-affidavits having been exchanged it would be oppressive on the pan of the workman to again persue a long stretched way to his remedy. Only in consideration of the above facts and circumstances of the case and the situation arising there of. ut despite my finding that discretion of this Court should not have been exercised in view of existence of alternative remedy the preliminary objection raised by the U. P. S. R. TC. is overruled.;