SABHAJEET YADAV, J. - (1.) BY this petition petitioner has challenged the order dated 5.8.2006 passed by respondent No. 2 contained in Annexure-6 of the writ petition, whereby the petitioner has been removed from service while working as bus conductor in U.P.S.R.T.C. It is stated that earlier also the petitioner was removed from service and he approached this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 24378 of 2001. While allowing the writ petition petitioner's removal from service has been quashed by this Court vide order dated 3.4.2002. After the aforesaid judgement the petitioner was reinstated in service and was performing his duties without any complaint. It is further stated that due to aforesaid reinstatement of the petitioner the Assistant Regional Manager Sri Girish Chandra Sharma was carrying malice against the petitioner and in furtherance of the same he again carved out a case against him and in July, 2000 a charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner. The charges levelled in the said charge-sheet were grounded merely on the fact that the petitioner was conductor of the bus no URY 907 and carrying the passengers in bus on 6.7.2000 on Orai-Jhansi route. It was alleged that the said bus was given signal to stop for checking by checking squad consisting of Sri Bhagirathi Singh and Radhey Shyam-Depot Incharge but the petitioner did not stop the bus, consequently bus could not be checked by the checking squad of the Corporation, therefore, the petitioner is guilty of misconduct carrying illegal passengers causing loss to Corporation and flouting the order of superior authorities of the department. In support of the said charges only material upon which the reliance was sought for in the charge-sheet was letter of Sri Bhagirathi Singh, who was alleged to be member of checking squad of the Corporation. The charge-sheet was given to the petitioner on 22.7.2000 which was replied by him on 12.8.2000. The copy of the charge-sheet and reply to the charge-sheet are on record as Annexures-3 and 4 of the writ petition. The petitioner on 22.7.2000 has also filed copy of the said letter of Sri Bhagirathi Singh as Annexure-5 of the writ petition. It is further stated that the Inquiry Officer has considered only written complaint given by Sri Bhagirathi Singh, wherein it was alleged that the bus was tried to be stopped through signal given by driver of the car of checking squad but bus did not stop for checking. It is also stated that after submission of reply of the charged-sheet, the Inquiry Officer has submitted his report but the copy of which has never been supplied to the petitioner. On the basis of said inquiry report the petitioner has been removed from service by respondent No. 2 vide order dated 5.8.2006 contained in Annexure-6 of the writ petition. It is further stated that in the impugned order incorrect statement of fact has been made to the effect that inquiry report along with show cause noticed dated 29.7.2004 was given to the petitioner. In fact the petitioner was never given any copy of the inquiry report and show cause notice dated 29.7.2004 and reminder dated 13.4.2005.
(2.) HEARD Sri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri S. Shekhar for the petitioner and Sri B.S. Chauhan holding brief of Sri P.S. Chauhan for respondents No.1 and 2. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that in counter affidavit the fact that no show cause notice along with inquiry report was served upon the petitioner, has been denied but no material has been placed along with the counter affidavit to establish that as to when the said show cause notice along with the inquiry report was served upon the petitioner. Therefore, in absence of necessary material in support of the said assertion in counter affidavit, the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner has to be accepted. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that no show cause notice along with inquiry report has been served upon the petitioner and the petitioner has been denied opportunity to defend his case.
(3.) NOT only this but learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted and demonstrated from the record that there is nothing to indicate that Inquiry Officer or Disciplinary Authority has ever informed the petitioner about the date and place of holding disciplinary inquiry against him and the petitioner has ever appeared before Inquiry Officer during inquiry. From a perusal of the impugned order also there is nothing to indicate as to whether any witness was examined in support of the charge levelled against the petitioner before Inquiry Officer and petitioner has ever been asked to cross-examine any such witness and also adduce his defence evidence before inquiry Officer. According to him, as a matter of fact, no inquiry at all has been held against the petitioner. It appears that inquiry report, if any, has been prepared by the Inquiry Officer and submitted to the Disciplinary Authority straightway without holding any such inquiry. Thereupon acting on such inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority passed impugned order without any show cause notice given to the petitioner along with the copy of inquiry report. Therefore, it is a case of total non-com­pliance of principles of natural justice while holding disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner, as such entire disciplinary inquiry should be held to be non est and nullity. I have considered the aforesaid submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through records and I found that the submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioner have substance and deserve to be accepted as correct.;