SABHAJEET YADAV, J. - (1.) BY this petition, the petitioner has sought relief of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 30.11.1998 passed by respondent No. 2 (Annexure-5 of the writ petition), whereby the petitioner has been removed from service while working on the post of driver in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation. Further relief in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with full back wages on the post in question and to pay his regular salary month to month has also been sought for.
(2.) THE relief sought in the writ petition rests on the facts that while posted as driver in the Corporation with the office of respondent No. 3, the petitioner was deputed on Bus No. U.M.V. 9571 on 12.9.1997 at 10.00 A.M. to ply the bus on police duty without any conductor for sending the activist of Samajwadi Party to their houses from the campus of Collectorate, Allahabad. The petitioner was instructed by the police authority to go at K. P. College ground alongwith the activist of Samajwadi Party and further instructed that he will not talk to the activist of Samajwadi Party and they will be left from the bus wherever they will say. On the aforesaid police duty the petitioner was sent on several places and ultimately returned back at K.P. College ground at 12.00 P.M. Where he was again instructed that he has to send 40 activists of Samajwadi Party without conductor at the site of Manauri Gate where the activist were to be step down. The petitioner about 1.00 A.M. in the intervening night of 12/13.9.1997 started the bus from K.P. College ground to leave the aforesaid activist at their instructed places. After completing the duties of 28 hours the petitioner went at bus Depot at Zero Road at 6.00 A.M. on 13.9.1997 and came to know that some seats of his bus were taken away by the officers of the department and on the assurance of the time keeper who was on duty that aforesaid seats were deposited in the workshop of the Corporation at Allahabad, he returned at his residence. Subsequently, thereafter the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 29.9.1997 and a charge-sheet dated 3.11.1997 levelling certain charges was issued against him. On receipt of the aforesaid charge sheet the petitioner submitted his reply by means of letter dated 11.11.1997 denying the allegations levelled in the charge sheet against him. Thereafter the Inquiry Officer appointed by the Disciplinary Authority inquired the matter and submitted his report on 29.1.1998 holding that the charges against the petitioner have been found true and proved against him. Thereafter Assistant Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C. Leader Road Depot Allahabad-respondent No. 2 issued a show cause notice on 10.6.1998 alongwith copy of inquiry report to the petitioner asking his explanation thereon. On receipt of the aforesaid show cause notice dated 10.6.1998, the petitioner has submitted his reply on 22.8.1998 but without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and aforesaid reply of the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority has passed the impugned order dated 30.11.1998 removing the petitioner from service. A copy of impugned order of removal dated 30.11.1998 is already on record as Annexure-5 of the writ petition. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order on various grounds mentioned in the writ petition.
(3.) A detail counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and officers of the said Corporation sworn by Sri A. K. Srivastava, posted as O.A.G.-II working in the office of Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Allahabad, wherein various assertions made in the writ petition have been denied and disputed and some more necessary facts have been stated in paragraph 3 of the counter-affidavit as under: "3. That before giving parawise reply it is necessary to bring the following facts before this Hon'ble Court: (a) That the petitioner was working on the post of driver in the Zero Road Depot of the Corporation. On 13.9.1997 when the petitioner was deputed on Bus No. UMV 9571, the said bus was given the signal to stop for checking, by the checking authorities at Mandari Mor. However, the petitioner did not stop the bus and sped away with the bus towards Kanpur. Thereafter the checking authorities followed the bus from the staff car and the bus was found parked at Manauri Gate completely empty. There were no driver or conductor or passengers in the bus. (b) That thereafter a report of the aforesaid misconduct was submitted by the checking authorities and the appointing authority accordingly placed the petitioner under suspension vide order dated 29.9.1997 and a charge sheet dated 3.11.1997 was issued against him (copy filed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition). As the petitioner's reply to the said charge was not found to be satisfactory, a departmental enquiry was initiated against him and the Assistant Regional Manager, Pratapgarh was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. (c) That thereafter in the departmental enquiry full opportunity had been afforded to the petitioner to cross examine departmental witnesses and to produce his own defence and thereafter the Enquiry Officer submitted a report to the effect that the charges of serious misconduct stood proved against him in the departmental enquiry (copy filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition). In the meantime, it is pertinent to point out that the petitioner had been provisionally reinstated in service. (d) That thereafter on receipt of the enquiry report a show cause notice dated 10.6.1998 was issued against the petitioner alongwith copy of the enquiry report requiring him to show cause as to why he be not removed from service. The appointing authority thereafter carefully examining the entire material on record including the reply to the show cause notice and was satisfied that it was not in the interest of the Corporation to retrain the petitioner in service and vide order dated 30.11.1998 petitioner was removed from service (copy filed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition). The petitioner thereafter filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 30.11.1998. The petitioner has a right of appeal and thereafter revision under Section 69-A and thereafter alternative remedy before the Labour Court/Service Tribunal and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Even on merits the petitioner has no case and is not entitled to any relief.";