A.P.Singh - (1.) MAHESH Kumar Pandey, petitioner has approached this court by invoking its extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for questioning the legality of the order of his removal from service on the ground that he was denied opportunity of defending himself against the charges on which he has been awarded the punishment of removal from service.
(2.) BOTH, in the writ petition and also at the bar through counsel the petitioner has complained against (a) non-supply of the copy of complaint on which the charge-sheets were framed against him, (b) non-supply of the copies of way-bills and blank book to him on the basis of which the charges have been found proved against him, (c) non-examination of passengers including non- supply of their statement of any, who according to the allegations made in the charge-sheets were being carried by the petitioners in the buses conducted by him on all the six occasions, (d) non-examination of the drivers of the buses in which petitioner working as conductor was allegedly carrying passengers without issuing tickets including non-supply of their statements, if any (e) non- application of mind by the appointing authority as also by the appellate authority respectively while awarding the impugned punishment of removal to the petitioner and while rejecting petitioner's appeal (ft vagueness of the charges which were levelled on him resulting in the passing of the impugned dismissal order inasmuch as the allegations constituting the charges did not refer breach of any service rule by the petitioner which prejudiced petitioner in defending himself, (g) and lastly that the punishing authority while awarding the punishment took into account also those charges which the Enquiry Officer had found not proved against the petitioner though he did not express his disagreement with the report of the Enquiry-Officer. All these points which have been taken by the petitioner and pressed in the argument by his learned counsel were also taken by the petitioner in his appeal which he filed before the appellate authority for challenging the removal order in the departmental appeal; most of these points except those which are directed against the appointing authority were also taken by the petitioner in his explanation which he filed in reply to the show cause notice before that authority. His complaint is that neither the appointing authority, who awarded the punishment of removal nor the appellate authority while rejecting his appeal applied their mind to the points raised by him and both of them mechanically passed the impugned order of his removal from service. Before the points raised by petitioner and the arguments advanced by his learned counsel are considered it is necessary to notice the facts of the case which are as follows : Petitioner was appointed Bus Conductor in U. P. State Road Transport Corporation, hereafter called 'the Corporation'. He was charged with (a) carrying unauthorised passengers in the buses which were being conducted by him on as many as six occasions respectively on 13.6.84, 4.2.85, 15.10.86, 22.8.87, 19.9.87 28.7.88, (b) misbehaving with officers checking the buses, (c) causing obstruction in checking of buses inasmuch as not making available to the officer checking the buses the way-bills and the blank-books, (d) tearing off the way-bill so as to destroy evidence of checking and lastly, (e) issuing tickets to passengers at the time of the checking of the bus by the checking officer. All these allegations of misconduct committed by the petitioner were reported by the officer checking the respecting buses which were being conducted by the petitioner on different occasions between 13.6.84 to 28.7.88 in Bareilly Region of the Corporation. On the basis of the checking reports the appointing authority, as has been stated by the Corporation in its counter-affidavit, issued as many as four charge-sheets and served them on the petitioner respectively on 1.8.84 relating to incident dated 13.6.84, on 6.9.86 in respect of incident dated 4.2.85, on 5.12.87 respect of incidents dated 15.10.86, 22.8.87 and 19.9.87 and lastly on 17.8.88 in respect of incident dated 28.7.88. Petitioner filed his reply to each of the charge-sheets which were served on him denying the charges levelled on him as also challenging the correctness of the version (facts given) in each of the charge- sheets. Before giving reply to the charges levelled on him to each of the charge- sheets he demanded the copies of the reports of the checking officer and the documents including way-bills and blank books on which the charges were based so as to give effective reply of the charges levelled on him in the four charge-sheets which however was not supplied to him. After petitioner's reply was received the appointing authority appointed the Assistant Regional Manager, Moradabad to hold departmental enquiry against the petitioner into the charges levelled on him. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and examined all the officers who had checked the buses on 13.6.84, 4.2.85, 15.10.86, 22.8.87, 19.9.87 and 28.7.88. All of them only proved their checking reports and made no other statement. Name of the drivers who were driving the buses in question nor any of the passengers who were travelling with or without ticket on those buses on the above mentioned dates too were examined. Their statement too was not recorded by the officers checking the respective buses on any of these dates. Petitioner did not cross-examine any of the checking officers who were examined by the Enquiry Officer in the departmental enquiry. Petitioner too appeared in the witness box and proved his explanations which he had filed against the charge-sheets for denying the charges and refuting the factual allegations contained in the charge-sheets. The Enquiry Officer also made certain enquiries from the petitioner during the course of his oral examination from which he concluded that there was clear contradiction between petitioner's oral statement and the entries in the way bills. The enquiry officer did not record the statement of any other witness, including any of the drivers of the vehicles which were involved in various cases of carrying unauthorised passengers by petitioner, any other member of the checking party who checked the buses except for the officer who had made different reports against the petitioner, any of the passengers who were being unauthorised carried in the respective buses by the petitioner on those dates. The Enquiry Officer did not also make any reference of any service rule which the petitioner may have breached or violated so as to incur the liability of his removal from service. No service roll too was cited in the charge-sheet which petitioner had allegedly breached by carrying unauthorised passengers in the buses on all the occasions indicated in the four charge-sheets. Though petitioner explained against this infirmity in the charge- sheets to the enquiry officer which were duly noted by him still the enquiry officer even during the course of the enquiry or during petitioner's cross-examination by him did not cite any service rule whatsoever which petitioner had allegedly breached in doing acts which were attributed to him in the charge-sheets served on him.
(3.) THE Enquiry Officer made three enquiry reports and submitted them to the appointing authority. THE appointing authority accordingly served three show-cause notices on the petitioner being dated 4.11.89 in respect of charge- sheet dated 17.8.1988, dated 16.12.89 in respect of charge-sheets dated 1.8.84 and 6.9.86 and finally dated 4.1.90 in respect of charge-sheet dated 5.12.1987. Petitioner filed his reply to the show-cause notices separately vide his letters addressed to the appointing authority copies of which have been filed as Annexures 2C (without date), 3C (bearing no date) but received in the office of the appointing authority on 6.1.90 and 4C (without bearing any date on it) but having been received in the office of the appointing authority on 3.2.1990. In the respective replies which the petitioner filed in respect of the three show-cause notices referred to above he again highlighted all the infirmities from which the charge-sheet suffered including vagueness of the charges due to non-mention of the service rules which he was found to have allegedly breached, non-supply of copies of statements of witnesses, if any, examined by the checking officers and copies of way-bills, and blank books and reports of the checking officers which formed the very basis of the charge-sheets and guilt of the petitioner. Petitioner also took exception against the conclusions reached by the Enquiry Officer on the ground that conclusions in respect of the guilt of the petitioner drawn by the Enquiry Officer were unwarranted in absence of requisite proof by independent evidence viz. evidence of drivers and passengers of the respective buses which were involved in the carrying of unauthorised passengers by the petitioner while conducting those buses.;