- (1.) SABHAJEET Yadav, J. The main question in controversy involved in this case is that whether the issue concluded at higher forum can be re-agitated in remand proceeding or only that issue can be considered which has been re manded by higher forum?
(2.) THE relevant facts having material bearing with the question in controversy involved in the case are that after holding disciplinary inquiry on the charges of misconduct leveled against 28 employees including the petitioner in respect of same incident on similar misconducts various penalties have been inflicted upon ' them, some persons were inflicted minor penalties and some were inflicted major penalties including the stoppage of 3, 4 or 5 increments, but a very harsh penalty of dismissal from service has been imposed upon the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved against the order of dismissal passed by disciplinary authority on 22. 5. 1996 the petitioner has unsuccessfully preferred departmental appeal before the Appellate Authority and thereafter has filed earlier writ petition No. 31704 of 1996 before this Court While deciding the aforesaid case on 15. 3. 2002 this Court has been pleased to observed as under: "according to the petitioner certain allegations was made against 28 employees of UPSRTC Regional Office, Varanasi in the Body and re- condi tioning Section in the Regional Office of UPSRTC, Varanasi. The disciplinary action against all the 28 employees including the petitioner was taken. The petitioner has been dismissed from service. The appeal filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed by the Regional Manager. A supplementary affidavit was filed by the petitioner in which it has been stated that in respect of the remaining employees a lenient view has been taken by giving some minor punishment and the petitioner has been arbitrarily discriminated. Copies of some of the orders has been collectively filed as Annexure SA-1 to the supple mentary affidavit. From perusal of the aforesaid annexures it appears that all the employees were involved in similar type of misconduct. Some of them have been given minor punishment whereas the petitioner has been dismissed from service. It goes without saying that if all the employees were involved in similar type of misconduct then the punishment ought to be same. The peti tioner appears to have been discriminated without any rhyme or reason as he has been imposed major punishment of dismissal from service which in the circumstances cannot be sustained. Since the misconduct has been found to have been proved by the authorities the interest of justice would be best served if the petitioner is directed to approach the Managing Director, UPSRTC, Lucknow within one month from today, he shall consider the case of the petitioner alongwith the order passed in respect of other employees of the same incident and may pass similar order of punishment. The Managing Director shall decide the matter within six weeks thereafter. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is finally disposed of. " Learned Counsel for the petitioner has informed the Court and pointed out that the petitioner has made representation before the Managing Director, UPSRTC alongwith the copy of order dated 15. 3. 2002 passed by this Court in aforesaid writ petition but while misinterpreting the contents and tenor of the decision rendered by this Court on 15. 3. 2002 in earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner the Manag ing Director, UPSRTC has passed the impugned order dated 18th May, 2002 whereby the stand taken earlier by UPSRTC dismissing the petitioner from ser vice has again been reiterated hence this petition.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order dated 18. 5. 2002 passed by Managing Director, UPSRTC runs contrary to the contents and tenor of the decision of this Court dated 15. 3. 2002 passed in writ petition earlier filed by the petitioner, therefore, cannot be sustained at all. Contrary to it Sri Ganga Prasad Gupta, Advocate appearing for UPSRTC has vehemently contended that the case of petitioner was quite distinguishable from the case of other 27 employees who were subjected to disciplinary action alongwith the petitioner in respect of the same incident and some of them were subjected with the minor penalty whereas some of them given major penalty including stoppage of 3 to 5 Annual increments proportionately to the gravity of the charges found proved against them. Since the gravity of the charges levelled and found proved against other employees were quite distinguishable from the charges which were found proved against the petitioner and the charges were much more grave than them, therefore, the case of petitioner was quite distin guishable and accordingly he has been punished appropriately by punishment of dismissal from service thus, no fault can be found in the order of dismissal having regard to the gravity of charges found proved against him.;