M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) HEARD Mrs. M.M. Pal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents - BSRTC.
(2.) THE petitioner has prayed for quashing the orders passed by respondent No. 2 and 3, namely, Managing Director and the Divisional Manager, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation by which the punishment has been imposed upon the petitioner in a departmental proceeding. The petitioner was in the service of the respondent -Bihar State Road Transport Corporation (in short Corporation). On 22.10.1990 he was put under suspension and thereafter a charge -sheet v/as served upon him. The charges levelled against the petitioner were that on 22.10.1992 he has refused to drive the booked bus from Giridih to Tata on 24.10.1992 when the Delux Bus was went to Ranchi returned to depot with some mechanical defect and then the petitioner was directed to take passengers of the Delux Bus in another Bus, then the petitioner instigated the passengers by pointing out defects in the said bus and thereby put the corporation in financial hardship as the fare of all the 30 passengers had to be returned. Another charge was that the petitioner always insisted for duty in Calcutta route where he allowed his son to drive the vehicle. On receipt of the charge -sheet the petitioner submitted the show -cause denying allegations. Consequently in the departmental proceeding was conducted and an inquiry report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer holding that the charges has been proved. On the basis of the said inquiry report the respondents awarded five punishments upon the petitioner, namely, recovery of Rs. 3000/ - from his salary, withholding three increments and non -payment of any salary during the suspension period and also warning. The petitioner preferred a departmental appeal and the appellate authority modified the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority.
(3.) NO counter -affidavit has been filed by the respondent -Corporation inspite of sufficient time allowed by this Court. It appears from the inquiry report that in the departmental proceeding in order to substantiate the charges only one witness, namely, Md. Zahir, time -keeper was examined who deposed that the petitioner was ordered to take the passengers of Delux Bus in which the petitioner pointed out so many defects. He admitted that the past sengers subsequently requested the driver to return the bus because of mechanical defect. As regard other charges no witnesses were examined. From the report of the Inquiry Officer it does not appear that all the charges have been substantially proved. However, prima facie it appears that the petitioner refused to obey the direction of the time -keeper, may be because of the defect in the vehicle. In such a situation imposition of major punishment can not be sustained in law. After analyising the entire documents and the averments made by the writ -petitioner which has not been controverted, I am of the opinion, that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is excessive and disproportionate to charges. I am also of the view that imposition of punishment by way of recovery of the loss sustained by the corporation amounting to Rs. 3000/ - and warning will meet the ends of justice.;