- (1.) Present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing or setting aside the dismissal order (Annexure-4). Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was wording as Conductor in Bus No. 1198, Godda-Ranchi route, under the respondent-Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Patna. The said bus was inspected by the Central Flying Squad and it was found that the petitioner was carrying four unbooked passengers, out of twenty-four passengers. He was charge-sheeted and accordingly, inquiry was conducted and punishment of dismissal was inflicted upon the petitioner. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner preferred CWJC No. 5945 of 1994 before the Patna High Court and the Patna High Court was pleased to quash the dismissal order passed against the petitioner and directed the petitioner to make a representation to the Managing Director within a period of one month from the date of the order. Respondent-authorities were also directed to consider the representation made by the petitioner by speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the said representation. Accordingly, the petitioner made representation and the respondent-authorities passed a fresh order by making some modification here and there but the dismissal order was maintained by the respondent-authorities. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that second show-cause notice was not given to the petitioner and the relevant documents were also not supplied to the petitioner and therefore, the manner in which order of dismissal was passed, is in clear contravention of principles of natural Justice. Learned Counsel for the petitioner drawn the attention of the Court to the inquiry report and submitted that findings were given in favour of the petitioner, however, Disciplinary Authority failed to consider the inquiry report and passed the dismissal order without proper application of mind and the punishment, imposed by the respondent-authorities is also disproportionate to the charges levelled against him.
(2.) Respondent has filed its counter-affidavit, stating inter alia that the order passed by the Appellate Authority is a reasoned one and is based on the inquiry report and show-cause thereto by the petitioner is in consonance with the principles of natural justice. In para-11 of the counter-affidavit, respondents has submitted that it has been held by the Apex Court in U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Mahendra Nath Tiwari that 'non-issuance of ticket by bus conductor to lone passenger is a grave misconduct' and as such, order passed by the Appellate Authority confirming the dismissal of the petitioner is in accordance with law.
(3.) Considering the aforesaid rival submissions and on perusal of the papers, it appears that petitioner was charge-sheeted as it was found in the inspection carried by the Central Flying Squad on 16.10.1988 that the petitioner carrying four unbooked passengers, out of twenty-four passengers and thereafter, inquiry was conducted in respect of the said charge. From perusal of the charge, which is produced vide Annexure-1, it appears that petitioner has given explanation in respect of show-cause notice. Findings of the inquiry report, which is produced vide Annexure-2, also indicates that findings are recorded in favour of the petitioner and the conduct of the petitioner was reported in the inquiry report as 'one of the irregularities was committed by the petitioner'. However, the Disciplinary Authority without affording reasonable opportunity passed an order inflicting punishment of dismissal from the services.;