- (1.) BY this petition, the petitioner, who was Conductor with the respondent corporation, has challenged the order by which he was removed from service for certain charges of misconduct. He has also challenged the appellate order.
(2.) ON March 30, 1978 he was chargesheeted and suspended for three charges. During three occasions on which few passengers were found without ticket and no entry was made by the Conductor in the Way Bill and the bus was allowed to proceed without handing over the Way Bill to the driver. Each of the charges, therefore, was permitting passengers to travel without ticket and not writing the Way Bill and not handing it over to the driver.
(3.) ON April 10, 1978, the petitioner filed his reply to these charges. In relation to the first Charge it was said that it was due to the error of the passenger that the ticket was not given to him and he was actually penalised. It cannot, therefore, be said that he was allowed to travel without ticket In relation to the Second Charge, two passengers had alighted to urinate. Their ticked was from Ahor to Nimla. They cannot be called as passengers travelling without ticket at that time. In relation to the Third Charge it was said that the petitioner was in the process of issuing tickets to those six passengers who regained: At the time of checking, the petitioner was in the process of issuing tickets and, therefore, he could not be held guilty. On July 14, 1978, the petitioner was dismissed from service. He raised the dispute regarding his termination, which was accepted on June 9, 1981 and the termination was held illegal, as it was made without enquiry and was in gross violation of the principles of natural justice.;