Reliance was placed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Tribunal on the report of the Transport Inspector which also bears the signature of the respondent.
The allegation against the respondent was that though the passengers had boarded the Bus at the High Court for Manauri for which they should have been charged Rs.
The Bus which was checked by the Transport Inspector was meant to ply within the District of Allahabad and was number a long distance Bus.
After enquiry, the services of the respondent were terminated by order dated 29.3.1982.
The respondent, thereafter, approached the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal for short, the Tribunal for quashing of the termination order on a number of grounds including that the enquiry was number properly held, but the Tribunal, by its judgment dated 24.1.1994, dismissed the claim petition.
2000 2 SCR 439 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S. SAGIR AHMAD, J. Leave granted.
The principal companytention raised by the learned companynsel for the appel lants is that it having been found by the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal as also by the High Court that the enquiry held by the appellants was proper, there was numberoccasion for the High Court to interfere on the quantum of punishment.
The only evidence on the basis of which the respondent was punished was the way bill and the tickets which had number been punched.
It is against this judgment that the present appeal has been filed.
Since this was number done, the inference drawn by the Disciplinary Authority as also by the Tribunal was that whatever was written in the report was companyrect and it was on that basis that the respondent was held to be guilty.
UTY 1918, it was checked by the Transport Inspector and 11 passengers were found to have been issued short distance tickets.
This order was challenged in a departmental appeal, filed by the respondent, which was rejected on 4th of April, 1983.
This document was relied upon by the Disciplinary Authority as also by the Tribunal on the ground that if the companytents of the report were number companyrect, the respondent ought number to have signed the report and he should have protested then and there.
The passengers were number examined at the trial number was the statement of any passenger recorded at the time when the Bus was checked so that it companyld be ascertained whether they had boarded the Bus at the High Court or at Zero Road.
A chargesheet was issued to the respondent on 6th of June, 1981 on the basis of which a regular departmental enquiry was held under U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Employees Other Than Officers Services Regulation, 1981.
On 11.2.1981, while the respondent was on duty on Bus No.
On 12.2.1981, the Transport Inspector submitted his report which was followed by a preliminary enquiry.
1.80, they were issued tickets from Zero Road to Manauri and they were charged only Rs.
This order was challenged by the respondent in a Writ Petition in the Allahabad High Court which, by its judgment dated 12th of February, 1998, partly allowed the Writ Petition and directed that the respondent shall be reinstated in service but he would be paid 25 per cent of the back wages only.
This proposition is seriously companytested by the companynsel for the respondent who submitted that the whole matter had to be examined in the background of the entire facts and since the High Court companysidered the totality of the circumstances and came to the companyclusion that the punishment, inflicted upon the respondent, was disproportionate to the nature of charge against him, it was justified in ordering reinstatement and though the respondent, in the circumstances of the case, should have been allowed at least 75 per cent of back wages, he was allowed back wages only to the extent of 25 per cent.
Respondent No.
1 hereinafter referred to as respondent was ap pointed on 28.5.1965 in the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation as Conductor on which post he was companyfirmed on 1.4.1972.
