( 1 ) THE petitioner seeks to quash the impugned order dated November 5, 1985 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) passed by the U. P. Public Services Tribunal No. 5, Lucknow (respondent No. 1)allowing the claim petition filed by respondent No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as respondent) and setting aside the order of the petitioner-U. P. State Road Transport Corporation (in short the corporation) dated April 21, 1977.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts arc that the respondent Vijay Bahadur Singh was appointed as a driver in the erstwhile U. P. Government Roadways on March 19, 1971 on temporary basis and subsequent to creation of the Corporation with effect from June 1, 1972 he was sent on deputation with the Corporation vide Government Order dated January 5, 1972. By this government order, all the employees/officers of the erstwhile U. P. Government Roadways were sent on deputation with the Corporation.

( 3 ) THE Zonal Manager (Central Zone, U. P. S. R. T. C.), Bareilly issued a direction vide letter dated march 4, 1977 to the Assistant Regional Manager, Bareilly to assess the performance of the drivers working in the Region and to take necessary steps in that regard. On that basis a report was called for which was submitted by the Assistant Regional Manager on April 11, 1977 in which the performance of the respondent was assessed. The Assistant Regional Manager, government Roadways found that the work and conduct of the respondent was not satisfactory. He passed an order on April 21, 1977 terminating his services without disclosing any reasons on the ground that he was appointed on temporary basis. The respondent preferred an appeal to the regional Manager, U. P. State Road Transport Corporation, Bareilly. The appeal was dismissed by an order dated August 8, 1977. He thereafter preferred an application before the Regional conciliation Officer, Bareilly alleging that his services were illegally terminated. The petitioner submitted a reply alleging that the respondent was rash and negligent in his driving and caused four accidents and other losses to the Corporation and when despite being afforded opportunity to improve his performance he did not improve his performance, his services were terminated. A report was submitted to the State Government and the State Government declined to make any reference under the Industrial Disputes Act. The respondent, thereafter preferred a claim petition to the U. P. Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow (in short the Tribunal ). The petitioner submitted a reply that the services of the respondent were terminated on assessment of his poor performance and in accordance with the terms and conditions of his employment. The Tribunal relying upon the contents of the written statement filed by the petitioner before the Regional Conciliation officer held that for the reasons disclosed in the written statement, the order of termination shall be treated as punitive in nature. The Tribunal allowed the claim petition vide impugned order dated November 5, 1985 and set aside the order of termination dated April 21, 1977.

( 4 ) WE have heard Shri Samir Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Dr. H. N. Tripati, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

( 5 ) THE basic question to be decided is whether the order of termination of services of the respondent passed by the petitioner is simpliciter or is punitive in nature. In Dipti Prakash banerjee v. Satyendra Nath Base National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta, AIR 1999 SC 983 : 1999 (3) SCC 60 : 1999-I-LLJ-1054, the Apex Court after surveying various decisions held that whether an order of termination is simpliciter or punitive depends upon whether certain allegations which are the cause of the termination are the motive or the foundation. If findings were arrived at in inquiry as to misconduct, behind the back of the officer or without a regular departmental enquiry, the simple order of termination is to be treated as founded on the allegations and will be bad.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document