High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Rajiv Kumar v. Regional Manager U.P.S.R.T.C. Meerut And Others - WRIT - A No. 4171 of 2004  RD-AH 1569 (1 December 2004)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4171 of 2004
Rajive Kumar Vs. Regional Manager, U.P. State
Road Transport Corporation, Meerut
Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J
The petitioner was a Driver in the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation. A charge-sheet dated 31.3.1997 had been served on the petitioner levelling three charges against him. A second charge-sheet dated 4.7.1998 was thereafter served on charges of alleged misbehaviour with a clerk of the Corporation and on the same date he was placed under suspension. However, after enquiry, by the impugned order dated 31.5.2002 passed by the Regional Manager of the Corporation, respondent No. 1 the petitioner was dismissed from service on the basis of enquiry report. The appeal filed against the said order was also dismissed on 4.10.2002 by the Zonal Head Manager, respondent No. 2. The revision filed before the Chairman of the Corporation also met the same fate vide order dated 24.12.2003. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
I have heard Sri Murli Dhar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ajay Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Avanish Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation and have perused the record.
Having regard to the nature of the charges which included the petitioner being absent from duty without information thereby causing loss to the Corporation and also refusing to obey the orders and drive the bus to its destination and also misbehaving with officials of the Corporation, in my view, no interference is called for with the impugned orders. Besides the aforesaid charges, the background and the earlier conduct of the petitioner during his service period has also to be taken into consideration which has been spelled out in detail in Paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit and have not been categorically denied in the rejoinder affidavit.
The specific case is that earlier also on 30.4.1994 the petitioner was warned and given adverse entry for the misconduct committed by him. Orders for recovery of certain amount from the petitioner were also passed on 24.10.1994 and 8.11.1996 for causing pecuniary loss to the Corporation. The petitioner was also found involved in agitations on 24.9.1996 and 25.9.1996. Besides that he had also been awarded punishment of withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect for non-compliance of the directions issued by the superior authorities.
In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts and conduct of the petitioner as well as the fact that specific charges levelled against the petitioner in the aforesaid two charge-sheets having been proved, the punishment of dismissal from service does not appear to be unjustified so as to call for interference of this Court in its discretionary writ jurisdiction.
This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.