Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. This writ petition has been directed against the impugned order dated 18.3.2002, appended as Annexure-8 to this writ petition, passed by Respondent No. 1/Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, hereinafter referred to as ‘Corporation’. By the said order the respondent No. 1 had ordered withholding of the retirement benefits of the petitioner and for recovery of a sum of Rs. 49,014.95 from the retiral dues of the petitioner to compensate the loss of the Corporation due to accident of the Bus, by alleged negligence of the petitioner.

3. The petitioner is driver in the Corporation. He claims that when he was driving Bus No. U.M.H. 9979 on Jaunpur to Varanasi route on 12.1.1994 it collided with a standing vehicle due to failure of brakes. In the accident right leg of the petitioner was fractured and in an unconscious state he was hospitalised in Kabir Chaur Hospital, Varanasi. After a long treatment he was declared physically disabled due to which he was unable to drive any vehicle in future.

4. In an inquiry held by Sri J.N. Sinha as Inquiry Officer, who submitted inquiry report on 8.3.1996 in which it has been held that the charge of driving negligently is not proved against the petitioner.

5. It has been proved from the evidence that the brakes of the Bus frequently did not use to work and in this regard many times the many drivers had lodged complaint to the authorities concerned. The Inquiry Officer has also recorded a specific finding that the petitioner has been implicated in false charge of theft of some part from the bus after accident but he could not have done as he was taken to the hospital in an unconscious state. Yet some parts have been included in the list of damaged and lost parts which are said to have been stolen by the petitioner.

6. The Inquiry Officer has also found that Sri G.D. Banerjee has deliberately framed the charges against the petitioner being criminal and prejudice to the petitioner and concluded that the accident had taken place due to failure of brakes which also finds support from the findings of the police report on investigation that the accident in question had taken place as the brakes had suddenly failed.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been implicated in the charge due to the reason that he had filed claim against the Corporation for payment of disability compensation as his leg was fractured and he became unfit to drive a vehicle and only thereafter the charge has been levelled against him so that payment of compensation may be recovered from the retiral dues of the petitioner.

8. The petitioner moved an application for his voluntary retirement from service being unfit to drive a vehicle as driver and the same was accepted on 12.11.2001 by respondent No. 2.

9. It is stated that for the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner was issued show cause notice on 8.1.2002 to show cause within fifteen days as to why the loss suffered by the Corporation due to accident of the bus caused by him, may not be recovered from his retiral benefits. The petitioner submitted reply to the said show cause notice on 18.2.2001. Thereafter, recovery of a sum of Rs. 49,014.95 has been ordered to be adjusted/recovered from his retiral benefits of the petitioner payable to him.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon the following extract of the impugned order :

"AAROPI KA SANCHAI KATHAN EKDAM GALAT EVAM AMANYA HAl, KYONKI PATRAWALI ME UPLABDHA ABHILEKHO KE ADHAR PAR UKT VAHAN AAROPI KO DINANK 11.1.1994 KO DEPO SE MILl THI TATHA VAHAN 183 M.M. SANCHALIT HONE KE UPRANT SAYANKAL VARANASI ME HALT KAR DI GAl THI AUR DINANK 12.1.1994 KO PRATAH AAROPI DWARA VAHAN VARANASI SE JAUNPUR KE LlYE LE JAYEE JA RAHI THI KI VAHAN PHOOLPUR KE AAGE AAROPI KI LAPARWAHI KE KARAN DURGHATNAGRAST HO GAl. ISESE SPASTA HAl KI VAHAN KA BREAK KHARAB NAHI THA. SENIOR FORMAN