B.K.Sharma, J. - (1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 31.8.1987 passed by the U. P. Public Services Tribunal, Vth, Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 149/F/V/198}. Thakur Prasad v. State of V. P. and others, whereby it had allowed the claim petition of Thakur Prasad, conductor (respondent No. 3 in the writ petition) of the U.P.S.R.T.C, against the order dated 22,9.1978 passed by the Assistant Regional Manager (C.B.S.). Kanpur removing him from service as conductor of the U.P.S.R.T.C, and the order dated 13.2.1979 passed by the Regional Manager. U.P.S.R.T.C, dismissing his appeal and quashed both the orders and further ordered that he shall be deemed to continue in service with consequential benefits of pay and allowances etc.
(2.) Heard counsel for the parties. The charges against the said conductor Thakur Prasad were that on 15.4.1978 while conducting Bus No. U.S.F. 2654, on a surprise checking raid made by the Traffic Superintendent, he was found carrying 13 passengers without ticket and has also made obstructions in the inspection by the checking authority and misbehaved with the same. The enquiry officer found him guilty on the said charges and thereafter, he was given a show-cause notice and after it, the punishing authority had passed an order of removal from service. His order has been upheld in appeal by the appellate authority.
(3.) The conductor had denied the charges and claimed that the memo of evidence or copies of the statements of the witnesses recorded in the course of the preliminary enquiry had not been supplied to him and thereby reasonable opportunity of defending himself had been denied to him ; that the traffic-superintendent had not recorded statements of any of the passengers of the bus on the relevant occasion of the checking raid in question ; that despite request by the petitioner, he had not been supplied with the copies of the documents relevant to the enquiry and thereby he was handicapped in submitting his reply to the charges levelled against him ; that he had also not been given any opportunity to produce his witnesses in his defence : that he had also not been supplied the copy of the statement recorded at the time of personal hearing and instead had been directed to take pencil notes of those statements from the concerned file in the office ; that after great difficulty, the petitioner had been allowed to take pencil notes on 22.9.1978 and was directed to submit his reply to the show-cause notice on that very date (22.9.1978) which was practically Impossible for him ; that he had not been allowed even 24 hours time for submitting reply to the show-cause notice after taking pencil notes from the concerned file and the impugned removal order had been passed against him on that very date ; that the impugned order of removal was thus clearly violatlve of the principles of natural justice as well as of the provisions of Article 311"(2) of the Constitution of India. It was also contended by him before the Tribunal that he happens to be an employee of the U. P. Government on deputation with the Corporation, and he could not be removed from service by the Assistant Regional Manager of the Corporation, nor was the Corporation competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him and so, the impugned order of removal was wholly illegal, invalid and was also ultra vires of the powers of Assistant Regional Manager in the matter of his removal from service.;