A.K.Banerjee, J. - (1.) The writ petitioner was a conductor of South Bengal State Transport Corporation. On a surprise check in the subject vehicle where the petitioner was acting as conductor on 9th June, 1982 a sum of Rs. 115.05 was found excess in the bag of the delinquent. It also revealed that from 20 passengers the delinquent realised Rs. 340.20 without issuing any ticket to them. The writ petitioner was put under suspension with effect from 11th June, 1982 and thereafter proceeded departmentally. The enquiry officer by his report dated 19th January, 1984 held the writ petitioner guilty of the charges brought against him. In reply to the second show cause notice the writ petitioner by a letter dated 31st January, 1984 admitted the charges and prayed for mercy. Such reply was duly considered by the disciplinary authority and he was removed from service with immediate effect. The order of the disciplinary authority passed on 22nd March, 1984 by the Managing Director of the said corporation was impugned in a writ proceeding being Civil Order No. 6222(W) of 1985 which was disposed of by this Court by judgment and order dated September 20, 1988. The order of this Court is quoted below :- This writ application is directed against the chargesheet, disciplinary proceedings, second show cause notice and final order. In my view, the disciplinary authority before passing the order ought to have considered as to whether there was a compliance of sub rule (9) of Rule 10 of the West Bengal (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. That is the basic grievance of the petitioner that the order passed by the disciplinary authority is not valid and legal. The disciplinary authority also committed an incurable error by shifting the burden of proof upon the petitioner. West Bengal (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules does not provide that the delinquent shall disprove the charge. This could only be done in the case where the delinquent is faced with a trial before the special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act. But this is a disciplinary proceeding. The disciplinary authority should not have reached the conclusion that the delinquent could not bring any evidence to the contrary. Apart from above, the admission of guilt is not the conclusive proof of guilt. The view that I have taken on this aspect finds support from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Madras v. Srinivasan reported in AIR 1958 SC 419. In that view of the matter, the second show cause notice and the order of disciplinary authority cannot be sustained and are set aside. The concerned authority is directed to proceed from the stage of consideration of the enquiry report and they shall secure the compliance of the rules contained in West Bengal (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971. The application is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. The petitioner shall be paid subsistence allowance from the month of September, 1988.
(2.) It appears from the said order that the order of the disciplinary authority was quashed on three grounds :- (i) The impugned order suffered from incurable error by shifting the burden of proof upon the petitioner; (ii) Admission of guilt is not the conclusive proof; (iii) No finding was there as to compliance of Rule 10(9).
(3.) On the aforesaid grounds the order of disciplinary authority was quashed with a direction to start de novo proceeding from the stage of consideration of the enquiry report. It was further ordered that the authority must secure compliance of the rules prevalent at that time.;