R.K.Mahajan - (1.) BY this petition the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari quashing the award dated 16.8.1985 (Annexure No. 12) passed by the respondent No.3.
(2.) THE petitioner was a driver in U. P. State Road Transport Corporation and was appointed on temporary basis from 14.10.1972 to 31.10.1972. Again, he was appointed from 12.11.1972 to 30.11.1972 and from 1.12.1972 to 12.11.1973. THEse dates have given by the counsel for the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation. The bus of which the petitioner was driver was attached to Kutchery- I.T.I. service and was only to take employees of the I.T.I. and no other passengers. There was no conductor at the relevant date when he was apprehended by the U.P.S.R.T.C. checking staff. The petitioner was apprehended on 8.9.1980 and 15 passengers were travelling without ticket, on 14.5.1981, 20 passengers were found without ticket and 9 passengers were found without ticket on 26.2.1981. The petitioner was suspended on 10.8.1981. Charge-sheet was submitted on 12.8.1981 and departmental enquiry was held and all the charges were proved against him. The petitioner was removed from service on 28.12.1991 after holding a regular enquiry and he was given opportunity to cross examine the witnesses and he availed of this opportunity of cross-examining them. The petitioner also filed an appeal before the Zonal Officer and that appeal was also dismissed. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute and the matter was referred to the Labour Court vide Annexure No. 12 to the writ petition. The learned Labour Court gave a finding that on all the three dates the workman, i.e., the driver allowed the passengers to travel in the bus by charging the amount. The Labour Court rejected the plea of the driver that the passengers boarded the bus forcibily on the ground that the matter was not reported to the superior authority. The learned Judge agreed with the finding of the Inquiry Officer and competent authority also regarding termination of the services and gave no relief. This is how this matter has come before this court.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, Shri A. S. Diwakar submitted that it was not the duty of the driver to issue tickets and it is the duty of the conductor to issue tickets. He further submitted that some anti-social elements boarded the bus on the occasion and he was not responsible. The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are devoid of merits on the following reasonings : The bus was attached to I.T.I. and the driver was not supposed to take other passengers than the bona fide I.T.I. passengers and he was not supposed to charge them. Once he charged the amount, it became the property of the U.P.S.R.T.C. and he-should have issued the tickets. Non-issuance of tickets itself shows dishonest intention to misappropriate the amount. Moreover, the driver indulged in this habit of non-issuance of tickets on two occasions earlier. It makes the conduct of the petitioner more unbecoming of a Government servant. The previous record of the petitioner shows that he was habitual in indulging in non-issuance of tickets and no leniency can be extended in awarding less punishment.;