IMPORTANT POINT
Disciplinary proceedings must be supported by evidence, and penalties must be proportionate to the misconduct; employees reinstated after wrongful removal are entitled to full pay and allowances unless otherwise justified.

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.

1. Heard Shri Mohd. Ali, counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ratnesh Chandra, Advocate, representing the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport, Corporation.

2. The petitioner was employed as conductor with Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport, Corporation (hereinafter referred to as, ‘Corporation’). On 1.11.2013, the petitioner was on duty in a 32 Seater Bus No. UP 57 T 2765 plying on the Gorakhpur-Padrauna route. The bus was inspected in mid route by a team led by the Transport Superintendent, Gorakhpur Region. The inspection team found that nine passengers in the bus were travelling without ticket.

3. On 2.11.2013, the inspection team submitted a report to the Regional Manager of the Corporation stating that, on inspection, nine passengers in the bus were found to be without ticket even though they had paid the fare. In his report, the Regional Manager noted that the nine passengers had deposed orally but had refused to give any written statement. It is relevant to note that the report does not disclose the contents of the oral statements of the nine passengers. The report also does not refer to any evidence in support of the finding that the petitioner had charged fares from the nine passengers. By order dated 19.11.2013 disciplinary proceedings were instituted against the petitioner and a charge-sheet was served on him. The charge against the petitioner was that he had acted against the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Employees (Other Than Officers) Service Regulation, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘Regulation, 1981’), caused financial loss to the Corporation and indulged in corruption by not issuing tickets to the nine passengers.

4. In his reply, the petitioner denied the charges levelled against him. The defense of the petitioner was that the nine passengers were students and had refused to pay their fare, therefore, tickets were not issued to them. The petitioner claimed that when the aforesaid nine passengers refused to pay their fare, the petitioner asked the driver to halt the bus but the driver did not halt the bus because of opposition by other passengers.

5. During the enquiry proceedings, the Transport Superintendent and two Assistant Transport Inspectors, who were part of the inspection team, appeared as witness of the Corporation to prove the report submitted by the Transport Superintendent. In his defense the petitioner produced, as witness, two passengers who were travelling in the bus on 1.11.2013. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 8.1.2014. In his report the Inquiry Officer held the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. A show cause notice dated 9.1.2023 was served on the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be removed from service.

6. In his reply to the show cause notice, the petitioner reiterated his defense as submitted before the Inquiry Officer. The defense of the petitioner was not accepted by the Regional Manager, who vide his order dated 7.10.2014 awarded the punishment of ‘removal from service’ to the petitioner. The petitioner filed appeal before the Chief Manager (Finance & Account), which was also rejected vide order dated 16.11.2015. Against the orders dated 7.10.2014 and 16.11.2015, the petitioner filed Revision before the Chairman of the Corporation, which was partly allowed by order dated 31.8.2021. In his order dated 31.8.2021, the Chairman accepted the defense of the petitioner and set aside the orders dated 7.10.2014 and 16.11.2015. In his order dated 31.8.2021, the Chairman held that the nine passengers had not paid their fare despite the petitioner having demanded it from them and when the passengers refused to pay the fare, the petitioner asked the driver to halt the bus, but the driver continued to drive the vehicle. The Chairman held that the inspection team was under a duty to recover the fare from the nine passengers. However, the Chairman also held that the petitioner was responsible for letting the nine pas