Allahabad High Court
Krishnapal Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 4 April, 2023
Bench: Vivek Chaudhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 32
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1822 of 2022
Petitioner :- Krishnapal Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sunil Kumar Misra,Tanuj Shahi
Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri S.K. Misra, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 4/U.P.S.R.T.C.
The petitioner, a Roadways Bus Conductor has approached this Court challenging the punishment order 06.04.2021 (Annexure No.12).
By the said order dated 06.04.2021, the salary of the suspension period was ceased and no financial benefits for the period he remained out of service was awarded and further annual increments of two years without impacting of future increments were stopped.
Facts of the case are that with regard to the allegation that 09 students and 06 persons of a family were found traveling without tickets on the date of incident. Departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and the punishment order dated 08.07.2013 was passed. Against the said punishment order, petitioner preferred a departmental appeal which was rejected vide order dated 13.08.2014 and revision against the appellate order was also rejected by order dated 12.03.2015. Challenging said orders, petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ 'A' No.33562 of 2015 (Krishnapal Singh Vs. Managing Director, U.P.S.R.T.C. and others). The said writ petition was allowed by a judgment and order dated 16.04.2020. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows:-
"33. As it is evident that neither the enquiry officer could prove the factum of corruption in a planned manner causing loss to the Corporation being one of the charges which remained unproved and further the charge that petitioner was carrying passengers without ticket, the disciplinary authority in such a case where there is lack of evidence to prove the charges against petitioner should not have proceeded in removing petitioner from service, and if in the enquiry, charges were not held proved, at the most could have directed for further enquiry or exonerated the petitioner from charges.
34. From the perusal of punishment order/ order of appellate authority/ order of revisional authority, I find that justice has not been done with petitioner at each stage and merely on the basis of suspicion and presumption that he has been removed from service as the enquiry officer in its report could not find any material on record to prove the charges against petitioner and only on the basis of statement of complainant and complaint, proceeded to hold the petitioner guilty of carrying passengers without ticket. It was the duty of the establishment to prove the charges beyond doubt before imposing major punishment such as removal from service.
35. In view of above, I am of the considered view that the orders impugned dated 08.07.2013, 13.08.2014 and 12.03.2015 are unsustainable in the eyes of law and are hereby quashed.
36. The matter is remitted back to enquiry officer to proceed from the stage of submission of reply by petitioner to the charge-sheet.
37. It is expected that the entire exercise shall be carried out by enquiry officer within a period of four months, from the date of production of certified copy of the judgment.
38. Writ petition stands partly allowed."
In furtherance thereto, a fresh inquiry was conducted and an undated inquiry report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer. In the said inquiry report, the charges levelled against the petitioner were not found to be proved beyond doubt and the petitioner was found not guilty. A show cause notice dated 15.03.2021 was given to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority, disagreeing with the inquiry report on the ground that as school children had not taken tickets hence petitioner ought to have stopped the vehicle, taken help of the Police and got tickets of school children prepared and entered in record and only thereafter conducted the Bus. Since the petitioner did not conduct in the said manner, hence why he should not be punished. The petitioner submitted his reply to the same and thereafter the impugned punishment order dated 06.04.2021 (wrongly mentioned as 06.04.2020) is passed against the petitioner. Now, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the said order.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that twice petitioner is found not guilty; first time by the High Court and second time by the Inquiry Officer, still petitioner is punished by the impugned order. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that inquiry is conducted against petitioner in a most vicious manner as only evidence that 09 school children were travelling in the Bus is proved by two affidavits, one of the staff car driver Ram Rikh dated 29.12.2020 and another of the Bus driver Ranveer Singh. None of the said persons were produced as witnesses in the inquiry. Merely on the basis of their evidence taken on affidavits, without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine, their evidence is believed. Further, none of the members of the inspecting team made any statement against petitioner with regard to such school children. Even Inquiry Officer found petitioner not guilty on the basis of said evidence. Therefore, there was no reason for the punishing authority to take a different view on the inquiry report.
The presumption made in the show cause notice that school children were travelling without tickets is on the basis of evidence which could not be considered as no opportunity to cross-examine the said witnesses was given to the petitioner. Even otherwise, the presumption made that petitioner should have stopped the Bus, taken help of the Police for getting the tickets made is also incorrect as there is nothing on record to show that any Police force was available on the spot. No circular or rule was served upon the petitioner in the inquiry to show that he was required to follow the procedure suggested in the show cause notice. However, ignoring all the aforesaid facts, the impugned order is passed against the petitioner on presumptive basis repeating the allegations as made in the show cause notice.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the Corporation states that there is no illegality in the procedure followed or punishment awarded to the petitioner, as there were school children without tickets travelling in the Bus and hence, the petitioner is rightly punished.
I have learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The inquiry report is indisputably in favour of the petitioner. The show cause notice is given to the petitioner on the ground that school children were travelling in the Bus without tickets. There is no reliable and acceptable evidence to prove that the school children were travelling in the Bus without tickets. The two persons whose affidavits are relied upon, were never produced in the inquiry as witnesses and no opportunity to cross examine the said persons was given to the petitioner, hence, their evidence could not have been read in the inquiry.
The procedure suggested in show cause notice is also neither proved in the inquiry nor any such circular/rule of the Corporation was provided to the petitioner along with the show cause notice. Therefore, the procedure as suggested in the show cause notice, is on presumption basis, which cannot be basis for punishing petitioner.
Hence, the impugned punishment order dated 06.04.2021, cannot stand and is set aside.
The writ petition is allowed. Consequences to follow.
.
(Vivek Chaudhary,J.)
Order Date :- 4.4.2023
Arjun/-
