JUDGMENT :

SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard Sri Vikas Sahai, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Om Prakash Saxena, respondent no. 2, in person.

2. The petitioner through the present writ petition has assailed the impugned award dated 29.08.2017 (notified by Govt. Order No. 715 dated 29.08.2017 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P. Meerut in Adjudication Case No. 173 of 2002.

3. Respondent no. 2 Om Prakash Saxena, was appointed as a Bus Conductor in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘UPSRTC’). Respondent no. 2 on 25.08.1995 was on duty on Bus No. UHN-2741 on Meerut-Sardhana Route. It appears that while the Bus was on the way, a surprise checking on the Bus was conducted by the Regional Checking Squad, Meerut, headed by Sri Ramesh Chandra, Traffic Superintendent, who found that certain corrupt practices had been adopted by respondent no. 2 in the distribution of tickets. He submitted a report to the Regional Manager, Regional Officer Meerut, disclosing the corrupt practices adopted by respondent no. 2 thereby causing the loss to the UPSRTC and misbehaviour and obstruction by respondent no. 2 with the checking squad.

4. The Regional Manager, Meerut, who is the Disciplinary Authority, by letter No. 833, dated 14.02.1996 issued a charge sheet to respondent no. 2 based on the report dated 28.08.1995. Later on, certain correction was made by letter No. 2248 dated 09.05.1996 in the charge sheet dated 14.02.1996 whereby denial of the signature on the waybill was inserted in the charge-sheet to remove the clerical mistake, which was served upon respondent no. 2 and duly received by him on 13.05.1996.

5. There are seven charges in the charge sheet dated 14.02.1996. The charges against the respondent no. 2 are reproduced herein-below:

^^1- fnukad 25-08-1995 dks cl la[;k ;wŒ,pŒ,uŒ 2701 esa esjB ls lj/kuk ekxZ ij M~;wVh djrs gq;s fdjk;k ysus ds mijkUr 8 ;kf=;ksa ds de nwjh ds fVdV cukuk vkSj bu fVdVksa dks forfjr u dj viuh tsc esa j[kukA
2- fVdV la[;k 3920788 dh ewy Áfr esa esjB ls ukuw] ;k=h Áfr esa esjB lj/kuk dks N% ;kf=;ksa dks n'kkZdj tkylkth djukA blh Ádkj fVdV la[;k 3970796 f}rh; Áfr] dksjh j[kdj ;kf=;ksa dks nks ;k=h ds lkewfgd fVdV nsuk vkSj foHkkx ,oa ;kf=;ksa dks /kks[kk nsukA
3- ekxZi= esa lkroh iafDr esa :i;s 12@& dks :i;s 10@& n'kkZdj :i;s 2@& gM+i djukA mijksDr Ádj.k ls foHkkx dks gkfu igqapkuk rFkk xEHkhj Hkz"Vpkj esa fyIr jgukA
4- fujh{k.k vf/kdkfj;ksa dks viuk dS'k u pSd djus nsuk rFkk vHkærk dk O;ogkj o ?kksj vuq'kklughurk djukA
5- fuxe O;olk; esa diV ,oa csbZekuh djukA
6- viuk dk;Z fu"BkiwoZd lEikfnr u djukA
7- mRrj Áns'k jkT; lM+d ifjogu fuxe deZpkjh lsok fu;ekoyh ¼vf/kdkfj;ksa ls fHkUu½ 1981 dh /kkjk&61 esa of.kZr vkpj.k ds Áfr dk;Z djus rFkk /kkjk&62 ds vuqPNsn 1] 5] 9] 20 ,oa 21 esa of.kZr vopkj esa fyIr jgukA**

6. Respondent no. 2 submitted an explanation on 24.02.1996 in response to the charge sheet dated 14.02.1996 denying the charges levelled against him. The disciplinary authority considered the explanation submitted by the respondent no. 2 and found that an enquiry as per law is to be conducted to find out the truth in the allegations. Accordingly, he nominated Sri O.P. Karnwal as Enquiry Officer vide order dated 07.03.1996. Sri O.P. Karnwal conducted the enquiry, but he did not complete the enquiry. Thereafter, one Sri Manoj Kumar, Assistant Regional Manager, Meerut, was appointed as Enquiry Officer. As per the record, the substantial enquiry was conducted by Sri O.P. Karnwal before Sri Manoj Kumar took over the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer after conducting the enquiry found the charges against respondent no. 2 proved and submitted the enquiry report dated 10.08.1998 to the disciplinary authority.

7. The disciplinary authority, thereafter, issued a show cause notice to respondent no. 2 by letter no. 3250 dated 01.12.1998 enclosing the enquiry report and asked respondent no. 2 to submit his objection, if any, against the enquiry report.

8. Respondent no. 2 in reply to the sai