Hon’ble Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation.

2. Vijay Prakash Mishra-Petitioner, who was a Bus Conductor under Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar [in short referred to as the ‘UPSRTC’], was removed vide order dated 28.5.1998 passed by the Assistant Regional Manager/opposite party No. 2 upon which he filed appeal before the Regional Manager, which was also dismissed vide order dated 12.3.1999.

3. It is said that on 14.12.1996, when the vehicle i.e. Bus No. UP 42/2470 conducted by the petitioner was inspected at Ariya near Akbarpur depot on Akbarpur-Tanda Road, the Inspecting Squad headed by Sri Prabhu Singh Chauhan, Assistant Traffic Inspector found that all the 36 passengers travelling on the bus were travelling without tickets. Among these 36 passengers 30 were travelling from Akbarpur to Tanda and 06 were travelling from Akbarpur to Ariya. Consequently, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 16.12.1996 and a charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner on 31.1.1997. The main charge against the petitioner was that he was carrying all the 36 passengers without tickets in the Vehicle No. UP-42/2470 on 14.12.1996 thus acted against the order and direction of the department; his conduct was against the Service Rules and amounts to dereliction of duty.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Enquiry Officer without conducting the inquiry in the manner as prescribed under the law, without giving opportunity of examination of witnesses and in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice concluded the inquiry and submitted the report to the Disciplinary Authority, who issued a show-cause notice dated 1.4.1998 to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply on 13.5.1998 reiterating his version given before the Inquiry Officer that at the time of checking, the reporting officer did not record statement of any passenger and also pointed out that the Inquiry Officer had conducted the inquiry behind the back of the petitioner. However, the opposite party No. 2 without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner passed the order of removal dated 28.5.1998. The Appellate Authority also did not consider the pleas raised by the petitioner in his appeal and rejected the same in a cursory manner.

5. Refuting the allegations of the petitioner, learned Counsel for the Corporation has submitted that in the inquiry, sufficient opportunity was afforded to the petitioner for putting his version but he failed to avail it and as such report of inquiry officer cannot be faulted. He also pointed out that the petitioner presented himself before the inquiry officer on the last date of the inquiry i.e. on 7.3.1998 and stated that he did not want to examine or cross-examine any person. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer concluded the inquiry and submitted report to the Disciplinary Authority, who on being found the delinquent Conductor guilty as per inquiry report, issued a show-cause notice and after considering the reply so submitted by the petitioner, passed the order of removal. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that the inquiry has been conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice.

6. Before dealing with the merits of the instant case, it would be useful to refer few decisions of the Apex Court rendered with regard to procedure to be adopted during disciplinary proceedings. In Kashinath Dikshita v. Union of India and others; (1986)3 SCC 229, the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized that the delinquent employee facing a departmental enquiry cannot effectively meet the charges unless the copies of the relevant statements and documents to be used against him are made available to him. In the absence of such copies the concerned employee cannot prepare his defence, cross-examine the witnesses and point out the i