Siddharth, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing of the order dated 31.03.2016, passed by the Assistant Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Kasganj, whereby the petitioner has been removed from service from the post of Driver. Further prayer has been made for reinstating the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits.
(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the detailed facts and has argued at length addressing the Court on the factual as well as the legal aspects of the case. Without entering into the factual details of the case only legal submissions made by the Counsel for the petitioner would serve the interest of Justice.
(3.) The first legal submission for the Counsel for the petitioner is that the Assistant Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Kasganj appointed another Assistant Regional Manager of the Corporation, Sri Lokesh Kumar as the enquiry officer to enquire into the charges leveled against the petitioner and on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by him passed the impugned punishment order dated 31.03.2016 against the petitioner. His argument is that the officer of the same rank can not be appointed as the enquiry officer. The law requires that the enquiry officer must be at least lower by one rank from the disciplinary authority, since if the disciplinary authority wants to differ with the report of the enquiry officer it would be difficult for him to take a different view than the view of officer of the co-ordinate rank. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Judgment dated 30.04.2014 passed by this Court in Writ- A No.26080 of 2006, Lal Mani Upadhyaya Vs. M.D./Chairman, U.P.S.R.T. & others and has relied upon paragraph nos. 13, 14 and 15 quoted below, " 13. Secondly, it is strange that ARM appointed an officer of a coordinate rank i.e., another ARM as enquiry officer who submitted the enquiry report and accepting thereto, ARM, Vidhya Nagar Depot imposed punishment. If the enquiry report was submitted by an officer of co-ordinate rank, it becomes difficult for another officer of the same rank to take a different view. 14. The law requires that enquiry officer must be at least a rank lower than punishing authority so that he may take independent view in the matter. When disciplinary authority himself has not conducted an enquiry and appointed an enquiry officer, meaning thereby enquiry is sought to be conducted by a person other than disciplinary authority. Now, if in a given case, enquiry officer appointed by disciplinary authority is of the co-ordinate rank, it would become difficult for the disciplinary authority, subsequently, to defer from the report submitted by an officer of co-ordinate rank and take a different view. It is well accepted that report of enquiry officer is not binding upon disciplinary authority. It ( disciplinary authority) can accpt the report or reject it, direct for further enquiry or if the Rule permits, can direct for fresh enquiry or itself, after recording reasons for disagreement and giving opportunity to the concerned employee, pass a different order than what is the finding of the enquiry officer. 15. In a service where employees are governed by statutes, discipline and decorum, if enquiry officer and disciplinary authority both are of co-ordinate rank, such independent approach on the part of disciplinary authority would be seriously prejudiced and it is very difficult for an officer of co-ordinate rank to take a different view, than what has been taken by another officer of co-ordinate rank independent view of disciplinary authority, therefore, should stand seriously influenced by report submitted by an officer of co-ordinate rank and therefore, such procedure, if has been followed, in my view would be short of compliance of the principles of natural justice and it would not be in the interest of justice to approve the same.";