JUDGMENT

R.N. BISWAL, J. — As per the writ petition, the petitioner was working as Conductor under the Orissa State Road Transport Corporation (in short ‘OSRTC”) in Keonjhar Zone during the year 1996. On 19.10.1996 at about 9.20 A.M. while he was conducting Keonjhar-Sambalpur (UP) bus bearing registration no. OSJ-1202 it is alleged that on signal the bus was stopped at a distance of 1/4th K.M. before Kalamati. The checking squad consisting of A.T.M. (Vigilance) OSRTC and two traffic inspectors, namely Sanat Kumar Mishra and Fakir Charan Panigrahi entered into the bus and took possession of the ticket book. On counting, 59 passengers were found to be there in the bus, but the petitioner had issued only 27 full and four half tickets. In other words 32 passengers were found travelling without ticket. Accordingly, the A.T.M. (Vigilance) prepared the checking report in presence of the petitioner and asked him to put his signature there, but he refused to do so. Thereafter, A.T.M. (Vigilance) reported the matter to the District Transport Manager (A), OSRTC, Keonjhar (disciplinary authority) on receipt of which he put the petitioner under suspension on 2.11.1996 and framed charge against him under two counts. Charge No.1, which is the main charge, reads as follows:-

“That on 13.10.96 while he was conducting Keonjhar-Sambalpur (UP) bus No.OSJ-1202, the said bus was signalled, stopped and checked by Sri S.K. Pradhan, A.T.M. (Vig) and Sri F.C. Panigrahi, T.I. Hqrs at a distance of 1/4th K.M. before Kalamati at about 9.20 A.M. During the course of checking it was found by the checking officers that there were 53-4/2 passengers travelled in the bus as against 27-4/2 valid tickets and the rest 32 passengers were permitted by him (the conductor) to board into the bus and carry them without ticket in a transport vehicle of the Corporation at the place and time of checking. It is further reported that the check report No. 3 dt. 13.10.96 duly filled in at the spot by the checking officers was refused to sign the same by him (the conductor) along with driver of the bus at the spot. These speaks of his misconduct as per Rule 136 (34) and (69) of OSRTC (CR & CS) Regulations, 1978 and (Amendment) Regulations 1986.”

The 2nd charge relates to the past misconduct and punishment imposed against the petitioner.

2.An explanation was called for from the petitioner to explain the above charges. In his explanation, the petitioner, inter alia, contended that the bus in question was checked at Kalamati bus stand and not 1/4th K.M. before it as alleged, just before a private bus which was competing with the bus conducted by the petitioner, suffered breakdown at Kalamati and a Kirtan Dal got down from that bus and forcibly entered into the bus of the petitioner. Since the explanation submitted by the petitioner was held not to be satisfactory, the then Asst. Manager (Administration), Keonjhar was appointed as enquiry officer to enquire into the matter. Accordingly, he enquired into the matter and in course of enquiry examined the A.T.M. (Vigilance), Sri Fakir Charan Panigrahi, Transport Inspector, Sri Ratnakar Maharana, the driver of the bus in question, Akshya Kumar Mishra, an independent witness and the delinquent. After completion of enquiry he submitted his report holding as follows:-

“In view of the above mentioned foregoing paras the enquiry hold that there were 32 passengers who were entered into the bus. Prior to issue of tickets violating the departmental circulars as such the charge No. 1 is partly proved for negligence in duty.

As regards charge No. 2 the past punishment were inflicted basing on recordical evidence with due knowledge of the delinquent and hence it is proved.”

3.The disciplinary authority differed with the view of the enquiry officer in respect of charge No. 1 and held that it was fully proved. So, he dismissed the petitioner from service vide order dated 7.11.1997 and treated the period under suspension as such. Since I.D. Case Nos. 19 of