YATINDRA SINGH, SHASHI KANT GUPTA, J. - (1.) THE present writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 26-9-2002 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) passed by U.P. Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow (in short "Tribunal") whereby it allowed the reference of Claim No.403/1989 made by the respondent no.1 (in short "Respondent") arising out of the orders dated- 4-5-1988 and 1.6.1989 passed by the disciplinary and the appellate authority respectively terminating the services of the respondent.
(2.) BACKGROUND facts in a nutshell essentially are as follows:- The respondent was initially appointed on the post of driver in the erstwhile U.P. Government Roadways and on creation of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (in short "Corporation"), he was sent on deputation with the Corporation. The respondent was deputed on Corporation bus no. URT 9834, plying on Agra- Bareilly route. However, on reaching Tundla Bus Station, the respondent allowed the cleaner of a bus, Kali Charan to drive the bus, even though he was not authorised to make any such delegation. While driving the bus, Sri Kali Charan lost control over the bus and the bus after hitting the tree fell into a ditch resulting in the death of three passengers on the spot and serious injuries to 39 passengers travelling in the bus. The Corporation suffered a loss of about rupees one lac as a result of damage caused to the bus. On the basis of the aforesaid incident, the respondent was placed under suspension pending the conclusion of the inquiry and a charge sheet dated 27-6-1986 was issued against him. A reply was submitted by the respondent which was not found satisfactory and after the completion of the departmental inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted its inquiry report to the disciplinary authority to the effect that the charges of serious misconduct stood fully proved against the respondent. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 15-10-1987 along with a copy of the inquiry report was served on the respondent, requiring him to show cause as to why he may be not removed from service. The disciplinary authority after considering the reply submitted by the respondent and perusing the records of the inquiry was satisfied that it was not in the interest of the Corporation to retain the respondent in service and vide order dated 04-5-1988 respondent was terminated from service.
(3.) THE respondent filed a departmental appeal. It was dismissed vide order dated 1.6.1989. Thereafter respondent filed a reference of Claim No. 403/4/1989 before the Tribunal challenging the aforesaid orders and the same was allowed on 26-9-2002 by the Tribunal holding that: (i) The balance salary and the allowances of the respondent no.1 of the suspension period were forfeited without giving any opportunity of hearing. (ii) The inquiry has not been conducted in accordance with law and no reasonable opportunity was given to the respondent employee. ;