G.R.Bhattacharjee, J. - (1.) The petitioner was a bus conductor of South Bengal State Transport Corporation. On 19-2-90 while he was performing duty in Vehicle No. WMH plying in Durgapur-Krishnanagar route, his cash bag was checked by the Squad Checking Staff at Krishnanagar between 11-45 and 12-15 hours and on such checking an excess of Rs. 61.35p. was found in his cash bag. Thereafter the petitioner was placed under suspension and departmental proceeding was started against him on the three charges mentioned below ; (1) Excess collection of Rs. 61.35p. on a sale of Rs. 893.30p. (2) Performing duty negligently and carelessly and all these constituting gross misconduct. (3) Violating the provision of regulation 25(2) of SBSTC Employees Service Regulations.
(2.) The petitioner was directed to submit explanation. One Shri B. Ghosh, Labour Officer, SBSTC was engaged as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner. After conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 30-5-91 which is Annexure-E to the writ application. Thereafter the Disciplinary Authority, the Managing Director, SBSTC after going through the enquiry proceedings, by his order conveyed under Memo No. 2754 dated 9-7-91 dismissed the petitioner from service with immediate effect. The petitioner then preferred a departmental appeal before the Chairman of the SBSTC. The Appellate Authority by order dated 31-1-92 as conveyed under Memo No. 712/5 dated 7-2-92 being Annexure-G to the writ petition confirmed the dismissal of the petitioner from service. The petitioner bas thereafter moved this writ petition challenging the disciplinary proceeding as well as the order of his dismissal as passed by the Disciplinary Authority and confirmed by the Appellate Authority.
(3.) That an excess collection of Rs. 61.35p. was found in the cash bag of the petitioner by the Squad Checking Staff is indeed an admitted fact. The petitioner's defence was that the excess collection of Rs. 61.35p. was not any intentional or motivated act on his part. He also pointed out that at the time of checking no passenger without ticket was found in the vehicle. He further pointed out that in the past some conductors had occasion to come across discrepancies in the numbering of tickets in the bunch of tickets and such discrepancies were also reported to the authorities and that, in his case also the apparent excess collection might have been due to any such undetected discrepancy, the possibility of which cannot be ruled out. It was simultaneously pointed out by the petitioner that even there might have been bona fide mistake also on the part of the conductor in returning changes to the passengers, thereby unwittingly causing excess collection. The petitioner's contention in gist is that the excess collection was not any intentional act on his part and he had absolutely no bad motive in the matter and the same might have occurred due to bona jute mistake on the part of the petitioner in returning changes to the passengers, particularly when the conductors have to work under adverse and trying circumstances and it might also have been caused by reason of any error in the numbering of tickets in a bunch. In the enquiry report, the Enquiry Officer has recorded that, to quote his own language, on considering `the whole picture of the episode of the conductor's duty, co-operation with the checking squad, amount of revenue collected on that route on the said date, rush of passengers in the bus in the said service, honest co-operation of the delinquent during enquiry and the statement of fact given by the PWS give enough scopes to believe that the error' occurred without any ill-intention. The Enquiry Officer also took note of the fact that no passenger was found unbooked during checking and all were having valid tickets. The Enquiry Officer took note of the plea taken by the conductor that excess collection might have occurred during exchange of amount with passengers or for error in the ticket bunch. As regards the charge Nos. 2 and 3 which are also related to charge No. 1 the Enquiry Officer opined that 'the records and evidence confirmed what the delinquent was not fully at fault'. In fine, the Enquiry Officer recorded his opinion that as regards the charge No. 1 relating to excess collection there was enough scope to believe that the 'error' occurred without any ill motive on the part of the petitioner and as regards the charge Nos. 2 and 3 the conductor was not fully at fault.;