Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

TRILOKI NATH DUBEY versus MANAGING DIRECTOR U.P.S.R.T.C. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Triloki Nath Dubey v. Managing Director U.P.S.R.T.C. And Others - WRIT - A No. 30461 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 11749 (18 July 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 52

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30461 of 2005

Triloki Nath Dubey

Versus

The Managing Director, U.P.S.R.T.C.

Terhi Kothi, Lucknow and others

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.

Petitioner has approached this Court questioning the validity of decisions dated 31.07.2004 and 05.03.2004 passed by Assistant Regional Manager and the Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C. Varanasi, respectively.

Brief  and relevant facts giving rise to instant writ petition are that petitioner had been discharging and performing duties as conductor. He was sought to be placed under suspension on 02.04.2004 on account of various allegations of misconduct. Charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 08.04.2004, to which reply was submitted on 04.05.2004. Inquiry officer submitted report and categorically mentioned that petitioner had accepted in his reply that 12 ticket less passengers were traveling in bus and further the Inquiry Officer concluded that petitioner had violated Pay and Board Rules and rest of the charges were not proved. Assistant Regional Manager after receiving the report did not concur with the reasoning given by the Inquiry Officer, and issued show cause notice. The said show cause notice was replied on 29.07.2004, and thereafter, the Assistant Regional Manager found the petitioner guilty of the charges and punishment, which was proposed, was sought to be implemented. Petitioner's representation against order dated 31.07.2004 has been rejected by order dated  05.03.2004. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.

Counter affidavit has been filed and therein the averments made in the writ petition have been rebutted, and it has been sought to be pointed out that it is not a fit case for interference, as the charges are established. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed, and therein the statement of fact mentioned in the counter affidavit has been disputed and that of writ petition has been reiterated.

After pleadings mentioned above have been exchanged, present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties.

Sri Rajeev Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended with vehemence, that in the present case, Inquiry Officer, on the basis of evidence adduced, had found the petitioner not guilty of the charges  and had merely found the petitioner of violating the Pay and Board Rules, as such the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority has erred in law, and without assigning any reason has disagreed with the report submitted by the Inquiry officer, as such the impugned orders are not sustainable.

Sri Sameer Sharma, learned counsel representing the U.P.S.R.T.C. countered the said submission by contending that petitioner was conductor  and held the position of trust. Here, in the present case,  circumstances are speaking for itself that such trust has been breached by the petitioner, and further it is admitted case of the petitioner that Pay and Board Rule was not followed, which clearly speaks of misconduct on the part of petitioner, and in this background, it is urged that no interference be made.

After respective arguments have been advanced, the undisputed position which emerges is to the effect that at the point of time when inspection had been made, 12 ticket less passengers were found traveling in the bus being  conducted by the petitioner, and this fact has been admitted by the petitioner. As to whether petitioner had charged the amount in question from these persons or not, was a matter in issue. Inquiry Officer at his level drew conclusion, which was not at all agreed by the Disciplinary Authority. Cogent reasons have been assigned by the Disciplinary Authority for not agreeing with the report of the Inquiry Officer, and thereafter cogent reasons have been given for drawing conclusions against petitioner. In the facts of the present case, in fact punishment which has been awarded to the petitioner is a liberal one. Seeing the nature of the duties assigned to a conductor, admission of the petitioner that 12 persons were traveling without ticket, this in itself is sufficient circumstance for not interfering with the impugned orders.

Writ petition lacs substance. Consequently,  the same is dismissed.

17.07.2006

SRY.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.