SHISHIR KUMAR, J. - (1.) THE present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 30. 12. 1991 (Annexure 9 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 2 and order dated 2. 6. 1992 (Annexure 11 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 1 so far as it relates to the petitioner being appointed as afresh denying him continuity of service and full back wages and other consequential benefits thereof. Further a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages with continuity of service and treat the petitioner in continuous service and to pay all arrears of salary with effect from 31. 12. 1991.
(2.) THE facts arising out of the present writ petition are that the petitioner, who was working as Conductor in Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Allahabad Region, Allahabad was appointed in the year 1975 and subsequently, he was confirmed. On 29. 12. 1988, when the petitioner was on duty as conductor and was going in route Basti-Allahabad and when the bus reached at the Civil Lines Bus Station, Allahabad, the same was checked by the Deputy General Manager (Eastern Zone). On checking certain irregularities were alleged to have been found against the petitioner. When the bus of the petitioner was checked by the authorities, the entire records/documents and papers were taken by the checking authority Sri Ashish Chaterji, then Assistant Regional Manager and petitioner was taken to the official guest house of the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation where he was detained for about seven to eight hours. A report was submitted on 22. 2. 1989. One Sri A. M. Yadav, then Regional Manager was a witness to the said inspection and he has seized the documents, papers and other materials from the petitioner on 29. 12. 1988, after checking the bus of the petitioner and he on the same day charged the petitioner with the alleged irregularities committed by him. A charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 19. 4. 1989 levelling as many as twelve charges against the petitioner. Petitioner submitted a reply on 1. 8. 1990 and an enquiry officer was appointed and conducted the enquiry against the petitioner. In the enquiry only Sri Ashish Chaterji was produced and examined on behalf of the corporation and no other person who inspected the bus of the petitioner on 29. 12. 1988 were either produced or examined despite request and demand of the petitioner. The most important witnesses to be examined was then Deputy General Manager (Eastern Zone) U. P. State Road Transport Corporation, Varanasi and Sri A. M. Yadav, the then Regional Manager, Allahabad and Sweeper Sri Madan Lal who alleged to have taken out the torn pieces of ticket etc. from the latrine pit. An enquiry was completed and report dated 19. 10. 1991 was submitted to the Regional Manager, Allahabad the conclusion of the enquiry, the petitioner was asked to submit further explanation in case he wants to say something more regarding the enquiry proceedings. Petitioner has further submitted his reply on 15. 2. 1991 bringing the notice of the enquiry officer certain irregularities committed during the course of enquiry. Petitioner has also submitted that the enquiry is not fair and proper and petitioner has not been afforded proper opportunity to define himself. Petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 14. 11. 1991, asking the petitioner to reply why the punishment be not awarded as the charges are proved against the petitioner during enquiry. The petitioner submitted his reply. A copy of the same has been filed as Annexure 8 to the writ petition. By order dated 30. 12. 1991, the petitioner has been removed from service. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed an appeal. The appeal was decided by order dated 2. 6. 1992 and the order dated 30. 12. 1991 was set aside by the appellate authority, removing the petitioner from service has been quashed but instead of reinstatement of the petitioner in service with full back wages and continuity of service, an order was passed to appoint the petitioner as afresh and he will not be entitled for his back wages and continuity of service. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has approached this Court.
(3.) THE writ petition was entertained and respondents were granted time to file counter affidavit. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been filed, as such, the matter is being decided on merits.;