WPSS/902/2021
2021 Latest Caselaw 2607 UK

                   Office Notes, reports,
                   orders or proceedings
SL.
         Date        or directions and                   COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
                   Registrar's order with
                        Signatures

      26.07.2021                            WPSS No. 902 of 2021
                                            Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

(Via Video Conferencing) Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate, for the respondents.

The brief facts are that, the petitioner, who was working with the Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, his services were suspended and later on he was removed from the services of conductor, on a set of allegations that, on an inspection, which was conducted on 09.01.2020, he was found carrying seven passengers without tickets.

Though, as against the order of removal, which was initially passed on 29.05.2010, earlier there had been separate set of proceedings, whereby the writ petition was allowed and the matter was remitted back to the respondents to decide it afresh. Consequent thereto, once again the respondents had proceeded to sustain the order of removal against which, the petitioner preferred a Departmental Appeal and later a Revision too, as it had been, provided under the Rules called as the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Other Than Officers) Service Rules, 1981.

Being aggrieved against the appellate order, the petitioner has preferred a Revision before the Managing Director of the Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, which is alleged to be still pending consideration before the revisional authority. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition, contending thereof that since he is out of job since 29.05.2010 and his revision as against the impugned action taken against him of his removal from services, since is pending consideration before the Managing Director, an appropriate direction may be issued to respondent No. 1 herein, to decide the revision preferred by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible.

Considering the fact that the revision itself has been preferred on 05.10.2020, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, this writ petition is being disposed of with request to the respondent No. 1, to decide the revision itself, as expeditiously as possible but not later than four months from the date of the production of the certified copy of this judgment.

Subject to above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 26.07.2021 Mahinder/