Palok Basu, J. - (1.) INDRADUTT Tripathi, the petitioner, has challenged the order dated 26-8-1988 (Annexure-30) to the writ petition whereby he has been dismissed from the post of Assistant Transport Engineer (Sahayak Parivahan Abhiyanta/Sabayak Kshetriya Prabandhak Pravidhik), then working as Depot-Incharge, U. P. State Road Transport Corporation, (for short the U. P. S. R. T. C.) Rath depot, district Jhansi. The charges against the petitioner Were as follows :- 1.While being posted as Depot lncharge in Baliia, the petitioner had entered into a conspiracy with the private bus operators so much so that on 9-2-1985, the petitioner facilitated the manhandling and 'Gherao' of Sri P. Swaroop, the Deputy Manager, and Sri B Pathak, the Regional Manager, and thereby failed to discharge his duties and responsibilities and thus committed grave misconduct. 2.Ever since the petitioner took over as in-charge of the Gonda Depot in August 1985, the meter reading of the buses started receding. In July 1985, the meter reading was 3.10 lacs, which receded to 2.69 lacs in July 1986. As compared to this, all other depots within Faizabad region had registered 25% increase. 3.During his tenure, the petitioner did not perform regularly route checking job, started operating buses without valid permission or justification, disregarded the directions of the Regional Manager, did not participate in the convened meetings, flouted the orders of the superior officers and exhibited carelessness and arbitrariness in discharge of his duties ; 4.The petitioner conveyed a wrong information through his letter dated 7-2-1985 that permit numbers 20, 21 and 22 had been issued on the Ballia-Beria-Sulemanpur, Ballia-Beria-Maajbi and Ballia-Beria-Lalganj routes, whereas the truth Was that permit nos. 21 and 22 were newer issued from the office and because of the said wrong information, in an order in Writ Petition No. 11586/1985 of the High Court, the said permits were tagged together.
(2.) THE relevant facts are that on 9-7-1987 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. Though the petitioner had received the said charges and show cause notice, he was not .putting in appearance, before the Enquiry Officer, namely Sri R. S. Yadav, who was appointed as such by the U. P. S. R. T. C. for Conducting the departmental enquiry. THE petitioner instead had sent a reply to the Commissioner that he should be informed : (i) as to on what post Sri R. S. Yadav, the enquiry officer was working and what was his pay-scale and (ii) that since the matter concerning his employment was subjudice in the Court, therefore, the departmental proceedings should not be held. The result was that not only the petitioner did not reply to the chargesheet and the show cause notice but he even did not participate in the departmental enquiry conducted by the said Sri R. S. Yadav. It may be noted that it is not denied that the charges framed by the enquiry officer and the show cause notice were duly served upon the petitioner. It has further not been denied that the petitioner voluntarily, on his own understandings of the situation, absented from participating in departmental proceedings and let the order dated 26-8-88 be passed against him. Moreover, the petitioner has himself filed Annexure-21 and 23 the letters written by the enquiry officer Sri R. S. Yadav. Annexure 21 shows that no further time was to be allowed to the petitioner, if he did hot send a reply by 21-9-1987. Annexure-23 shows that inspire of the fact that the officer concerned of the U. P. S. R. T. C. had already written to him that the pendency of the so called litigation about his employment did not in any way affect the departmental proceedings or its continuance, the petitioner was not replying to the charges or participating in the proceedings, and it was clarified by Sri Yadav in that letter that if by 25-4-1988, the petitioner did not participate or file his reply, he would be forced to proceed ex-parte in the matter. We have heard Sri V. K. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. K. Kalia, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the U. P. S. R. T. C. and have gone through the materials produced along- with the affidavits. But before we enter into the merits of the respective arguments in the writ petition, we have to decide an application dated and moved on 4-8-1989 by Sri V. K. Srivastav, learned Counsel for the petitioner, who told the court that he has been asked by his client Sri Indradutt Tripathi to file the same.
(3.) THE application dated 4-8-1989 is accompanied by an affidavit sworn on 4-8-4989 at 930 A.M. the relevant part of the prayer contained in this application is as under :- "...Prayed that the Hon. Court may graciously be pleased to stop the final hearing of the aforesaid writ petition. It is further prayed that an order for the compliance of the orders dated 8-3-1989 passed by Hon. Justice Mr D. S. Bajpai ' and the order dated 20-4-1989 passed by Hon. Justice K. C. Agrawal (at present the Hon. the A.C.J.) be passed and the final hearing be done thereafter in the interest of justice." The record tells us that this writ petition was filed on 6-9-1988 before a Division Bench and was admitted on 22-2-1989. In the ordersheet dated 8-3-1989 there is an order of a learned Single Judge indicating that the interim matter was directed to be listed before him on the expiry of two weeks after service on opposite party no 3. However, on an application dated 28-3-1989 filed by opposite party no. 1 and 2, the Hon. the Chief Justice (Hon. B. N. K., C. J.) passed an order on 7-4-1989 that the writ petition itself be listed for hearing before the appropriate Bench in the first week of May 1989. In paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 8 of this application it was stated that neither the case was shown in the cause list of 8-3-1989 nor was any supplementary notice issued concerning the listing of the said case before Hon. the Single Judge on 8-3-1989 and thus they had no knowledge of the said order dated 8-3-1989. It was, therefore, prayed by them that the writ petition itself be posted for final hearing. It appears that the petitioner's Advocate Shri V. K. Srivastav moved an application dated 7-4-1989 praying that a date in the "stay-matter" may also be fixed. On this, Hon. the Chief Justice (Hon. B. N. K., C. J) passed an order on 13-4-89 directing it to be listed before Hon. B. L. Loomba, J. But on 7-4-1989 itself, the petitioner's Advocate Sri V. K. Srivastava, had moved another application before Hon. B L Loomba, J. praying that the record of the Writ Petition be directed to be placed before the learned Single Judge, who passed the order dated 8-3-1989. This application was directed by Hon'ble Loomba, J. to be listed before Hon. Senior Judge (Lucknow Bench) for orders. It was sought to be made out in this application that the matter was 'tied up' to that learned Single Judge;