S.S.Chauhan, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Prabhakar Tiwari, learned counsel for the UPSRTC. The petitioner has challenged the order of removal from service dated 4.4.1998 and the orders dated 18.1.1999 and 24.1.2000.
(2.) The petitioner who came to be appointed as driver on 4.4.1988 served the department continuously, while he was on duty on 11.7.1995 and was taking the bus from Rupaidiha to Sitapur met with certain shortage of diesel and, therefore, the vehicle was parked at the police station Jharekhapur and, thereafter, it is alleged that both the drivers left the bus in search of diesel. Since the depot was lying closed at the relevant time, they could not get the diesel and they went to their home. With a view to secure money, the same was given to the petitioner and one other co-driver Mool Chand to deposit it with the Cashier at the depot. Since the petitioner reached the depot late, the money could not be deposited by him and thereafter he deposited the amount of Rs. 20,763/- on 12.7.1995. The petitioner was placed under suspension by means of order dated 7.9.1995 for depositing the money short by Rs. 188/- It was also alleged that the petitioner and co-driver Mool Chand visited the workshop of the depot and misbehaved with the Senior In-charge of the depot. They were charge-sheeted. They filed reply to the charge-sheet. Thereafter an enquiry was held and after enquiry the petitioner was removed from service vide order dated 4.4.1998. The petitioner filed appeal against the said order and the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 18.1.1999. Thereafter the petitioner filed revision challenging the aforesaid two orders which too was dismissed on the ground of limitation.
(3.) Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been discriminated in the matter of punishment. Co-driver, namely, Mool Chand was equally responsible in the misconduct and who was all along accompanying the petitioner has not been awarded with any such punishment whereas the petitioner has been removed from service fastening the entire liability of the charge. He, therefore, submits that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is discriminatory and it is not uniform. Action of the opposite parties is discriminatory and as such, the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is liable to be quashed.;