BHAVANSINH RAYSINHJI RATHOD Vs. STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed by a ST Bus Conductor challenging the order Annexure B dated 20/06/1978 passed by the Divisional Director State Transport Corporation of the Gujarat State.

(2.) The petitioner had been as a Conductor serving in the State Transport Corporation for 10 years prior to the institution of the proceedings. He was holding a permanent post. The petitioner claimed that he had at his back an unblemished record of faithful service. The unfortunate incident that allegedly brought about this removal order is stated by him in his petition. On 8-6-1978 he was the conductor in the bus that started its journey from Ahmedabad and was bound for Mitha Ghoda. A girl named Shakuntala boarded the bus from Sanand. The petitioner did not know because of the rush in the bus that she was bound not for the terminus of the route. There were about 10 to 12 passengers in the bus after it left Kharagodha. The petitioner then found that there was one excess passenger and on enquiry from her he learnt that she was to get down at Kharagodha and was not to go Mitha Ghoda. The girl according to the petitioner got down at Mitha-Ghoda along with other passengers and went to the place of the Village Sarpanch and by the next morning by the very bus she went with her relatives to Viramgam. On. 14-6-1978 that is after six days the sensitive news in the Jai Hind Daily about the reported misconduct of the conductor with the girl under the caption If True Shameful came out. On the basis of that report in the Press the Security Department of the respondent Corporation had conducted some ex parte preliminary inquiry and the respondent no. 2 had called the petitioner on 20/06/1978 and was asked to give his statement in that regard. The petitioner stated in his statement what the truth was and denied categorically of his having taken any liberty with that girl. According to the petitioner. hardly had he finished his statement about the alleged incident on that day namely 20/06/1978 before the respondent No. 2 the Divisional Director of the State Transport Corporation Mr. Raj Guru passed then and there the impugned order Annexure B discharging the petitioner from service with immediate effect as per the provisions of Rule 61 of the State Transport Employees Regulations. The petitioner therefore filed this petition. the petitioner had appended to his petition the affidavit of the girl Shakuntala and of the Sarpanch of the village Mitha-Ghoda and also the affidavit of that girl Shakuntalas uncle. In my view this is redundant because this Court is not sitting in judgment on the merits of the matter.

(3.) Mr. B. H. Brahmbhatt the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner told that the impugned order Annexure B wherein the garb of discharge simplicitor is in effect a penal order intended to punish the petitioner summarily for the alleged misconduct attributed to him as a possible misconduct that might have taken place on that night i.e. on 8