Ram Nath Ii Conductor vs U.P.S.R.T.C. And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 8331 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 38
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 52542 of 2006
 

 
Petitioner :- Ram Nath Ii Conductor
 
Respondent :- U.P.S.R.T.C. And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- J.P. Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Ajai Singh,Anirudh Kumar Mishra
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

Heard Sri Dhirendra Singh holding brief of Sri J.P. Singh learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears on behalf of the respondents even in the revised call.

The present petition has been filed for the following relief:

"(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 10.04.2006 and 29.07.2006 passed by respondent nos. 2 and 3 (Annexure Nos. 10 and 12 to the writ."

The present petition has been filed by petitioner questioning the validity of decision dated 10.04.2006 and 29.07.2006 passed by the respondent no. 2 and 3 respectively in shape of punishment order as well as appellate order through which the recovery of rupees 23,775.90 have been imposed against the petitioner.

While rendering his services as Conductor the petitioner took the roadways bus No. U.T. A. 9298 from Deoria to Kanpur via Bhengari at about 2.30 p.m, and reached Kanpur on 11.06.1981 at about 6.00 A.M. The petitioner started his return journey from Kanpur in the same bus at about 19.00 hours and reached Bhengari at about 7.00 A.M. on 12.6.1981, during a brief halt at Bhengari the petitioner left for Deoria via Salempur when the bus left Salempur and the petitioner started checking his final account and the tickets and his own luggage and other articles he found that his personal bag with his personal belongings and the unused tickets including the blank book tickets which he had kept near the driver of the bus were missing. The petitioner immediately came to Salempur and lodged a report on the same day at the Police Station Salempur, Deoria that he had lost his articles including the tickets on his way back from Bhengari to Deoria.

The departmental authorities were satisfied and as such no enquiry or any disciplinary action has been initiated against the petitioner with regard to the incident.

After the gap of more than four years Depot Manager Bird-Ghat issued a charge sheet dated 07.05.1985 to the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid incident whereupon the petitioner submitted a detailed reply on dated 14.06.1985.

On the information as lodged in shape of F.I.R. the Investigating Officer submitted a report on dated 04.07.1985 that it has been found after thorough investigation that there is hardly any evidences against the petitioner with regard to mis-placement of the unused tickets with the blank ticket book and as such he may not be liable for any charges of misusing the said tickets.

The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that even after having the report from the concerned Police Station the Assistant Regional Manager, Deoria initiated an enquiry and recorded the statement of the petitioner and one Sri Ram Naresh Pandey and without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to examine any other witness or to participate in the proper disciplinary proceedings, passed an order dated 19.2.1986 holding that the petitioner is liable to pay a sum of rupees 23,775.90 on account of the loss of the tickets under the circular issued by the Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Lucknow dated 15.11.1984 and that the said amount should be recovered from the salary of the petitioner @ rupees 100 per month.

Being aggrieved by the punishment order, petitioner challenged the same by preferring an appeal before the Appellate Authority and without considering the grounds as taken up while filing the appeal the same was also rejected vide order dated 15.6.1986.

Prejudice caused to the petitioner through order dated 19.2.1986 and 15.6.1986 passed by disciplinary authority and an Appellate Authority respectively, was challenged by the petitioner by way filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as C.M.W.P. No. 6456 of 1986 (Ram Nath II Versus The Depot Manager, Bird-Ghat, Gorakhpur and others).

While adjudicating the grievances as raised by the petitioner in the above mentioned petition the appellate order dated 15.6.1986 has been set aside by this Court and the matter was remanded back to the respondent no. 3 to pass fresh order after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in the light of the observations as made in the order dated 19.5.2004.

In pursuance of the same fresh charge sheet has been issued against the petitioner and the same has been properly replied by the petitioner and the same has been decided in the most mechanical manner by way of recording the same grounds and the punishment as awarded to the petitioner has been recasted without entertaining legal ground as raised by the petitioner that no recovery can be initiated if the case is otherwise within the case of misuse of the tickets which has been lost from the custody of the conductor.

The ground as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is well covered with the rules as mentioned under para 24 of the petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner raised his arguments that at no point of time the provisions of the rules pertaining to loss of ticket has ever been discussed while determining the recovery of rupees 23,775.90 upon the petitioner and as such the order dated 10.04.2006 and 29.07.2006 are liable to be quashed since it is apparent from the records that while adjudicating the appeal as preferred by the petitioner the Appellate Authority also ignored the vital aspect which is the material question to be considered that whether the lost ticket has ever been misused by any one if that be not so then no recovery can be fastened against the petitioner.

Per contra while rebutting the stand so taken up by the petitioner in the writ petition a detailed counter-affidavit has been preferred by the responding authorities which is only in shape of supporting the order which impugned the petition. By bare perusal of the counter affidavit filed on dated 19.02.2007 there is hardly any whisper with regard to the rules applicable in the instant matter specifically for the conduction of duty in respect of the tickets by the Conductor rendering their services for the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation.

Learned counsel for the petitioner substantiated his arguments with the judgment dated 20.07.2006 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 73406 of 2005 (Girijesh Singh Versus U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and others) wherein the similar question has been categorically dealt while adjudicating the controversy as raised by the similarly situated person/petitioner who had been the Conductor and rendering his services for the same department.

The detailed discussion of the regulations as quoted under para 24 of the petition has been derived which requires to be followed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as by the Appellate Authority while determining the recovery in case of the loss of tickets. By bare perusal of the aforesaid regulations would go to show that negligence in performance of duties has been defined as one of the mis-conduct.

Amongst minor penalties, one of the minor penalties, which can be provided for recovery from the pay or deposit its credit wholly or in part, pecuniary loss caused to the corporation by negligence or breach of order. Before proceeding to award minor penalty, employee is to be informed of the charges against him and must be called upon to submit his explanation with reasonable time and thereafter decision has to be taken as is considered appropriate and whatever penalty is awarded, reasons therefore has to be given.

Thus before imposing penalty for recovery from the pay or deposit at his credit wholly or in part and in pecuniary loss caused to the corporation shall be dealt in consonance with the provisions specified under loss of tickets wherein it is crystal clearly defined under sub para 3 of para 24 of the petition that no recovery can be fastened if the tickets are not misused.

It is evident from the Disciplinary proceedings as well as followed by the charge-sheet issued by the competent authority against the petitioner that there is hardly any case of misuse of the tickets, whereas only allegation has been forwarded against the petitioner that due to negligence and in dereliction of duties the unused ticket and blank book of tickets have been lost.

The determination of the recovery can only be directed by the competent authority if the lost tickets were being misused and the same has been found that the tickets allocated to the petitioner have been misused and there is a loss of the revenue to the corporation.

While submitting the reply in pursuance to the charge sheet the same ground has been taken up by the petitioner but unfortunately no consideration has been drawn by the disciplinary authority while passing the punishment order and the same has been mechanically reiterated by the Appellate Authority which culminated into quashing the appellate order as passed by the Appellate Authority in the earlier writ petition as preferred by the petitioner.

In pursuance to the direction issued by this Court in Writ Petition No. 6456 of 1986 the matter was remanded back to the disciplinary authority for deciding as fresh after taking into consideration the regulations as well as provisions recovering the field for loss of tickets, but again while passing the order dated 10.04.2006 the Disciplinary Authority i.e. respondent no. 3 failed to discuss the vital ground as raised by the petitioner with regard to the loss of ticket which were never misused and as such no recovery can be fastened against the petitioner. The similar manifest error of law is apparent from the records in order dated 29.04.2006 passed by Appellate Authority i.e. respondent no. 2.

In view of the aforementioned discussion both the orders dated 29.07.2006 and 10.04.2006 passed by respondent nos. 2 and 3 respectively are hereby quashed and set aside.

It has been informed that no recovery has been effected in pursuance of the orders impugned in the petition since the same were stayed by this Court vide order dated 20.09.2006.

The writ petition stands allowed accordingly.

Order Date :- 22.3.2023

Shaswat