SANTI SUDHA LAYEK Vs. SOUTH BENGAL STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ORS.
LAWS(CAL)-2016-9-49
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on September 15,2016

Santi Sudha Layek Appellant
VERSUS
South Bengal State Transport Corporation And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

ARIJIT BANERJEE,J. - (1.) The petitioner was a conductor in the employment of the respondent Corporation. In this writ application the petitioner challenges the order dated 29 March, 2010 placing him under suspension, the charge -sheet dated 30 March, 2010, the enquiry report dated 4 December, 2010, the order of dismissal dated 11 January, 2012 passed by the respondent no. 3 and the order dated 13 May, 2013 passed by the respondent no. 2 being the Appellate Authority confirming the dismissal order. The petitioner prays for reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits.
(2.) On 28 March, 2010 the petitioner was on duty in a bus travelling from Purulia to Behrampur. At Bankura the Checking Squad Personnel boarded the said Bus and conducted a surprise inspection. On 29 March, 2010, the members of the said checking squad lodged a complaint with the Divisional Manager, Durgapur Division of the respondent Corporation alleging certain irregularities on the part of the petitioner.
(3.) The respondent corporation issued a charge -sheet dated 30 March, 2010 to the petitioner and placed him under suspension. The following charges were levelled against the petitioner: - i. He collected un -accumulated money from the passengers without issuing any tickets and also tried to cover up the said amount for his personal gain. Such activity is derogatory to the prestige of the corporation. He is charged for violation of provisions 25(1), 25(2) and 25(6) of the SBSTC Employees' Service Regulations, 1987. ii. He is charged for creating disturbance inside the vehicle and creating obstruction in the process of checking by using filthy and un -parliamentary language, even attempting to assault the checking personnel. He is charged for gross insubordination to the checking personnel and for violating the trust reposed on him as conductor of the vehicle. He is charged for violation of provisions 25(1) and 25(4) if the SBSTC Employees' Service Regulations, 1987. ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.