The charges were enquired into by Shri S.C. Jain, a retired District Judge, who was appointed as the Enquiry Officer.
The charge against the respondent was that he, in drunken state, along with a companyductor went to the Assistant Cashier in the cash room of the appellant and demanded money from the Assistant Cashier.
The Enquiry Officer submitted the Report on 21st September, 1990, in which he found that the charge about habitual absence was number proved against the Respondent.
When the Assistant Cashier refused, the respondent abused him and threatened to assault him.
It companysequently set aside the order of removal and substituted the punishment of removal by the punishment of stoppage of one wage increment and payment of 50 of the back wages.
Thereafter, a show cause numberice was issued to the Respondent on 12th August, 1991, and by order dated 31st August, 1991, he was removed from service.
On an industrial dispute being raised by Respondent, a reference was made on 31st March, 1993 to the Labour Court for adjudication.
The Labour Court, while upholding the third charge against the respondent nevertheless interfered with the order of the appellant removing the respondent from the service.
The award was challenged by the appellant before the High Court in a writ petition which was dismissed summarily on 27th April, 1998.
The Labour Court, by its award dated 6th December, 1996, came to the companyclusion that though the departmental enquiry did number suffer from any infirmity, the punishment of removal was excessive.
It was certainly a serious charge of misconduct against the respondent.
The third and last charge against the Respondent was that on 24th May, 1980 at about 8.30 PM, he, along with Shiv Kumar Sharma, Conductor, went to Ramesh Chandra, Assistant Cashier, in the cash room in a drunken state.
The other charge relating to taking the Bus to Bareilly was also number established, but it was established that he had taken out the Bus unauthorisedly from Badaun workshop to some place without taking the Conductor in the Bus.
He demanded money from Ramesh Chandra and when the latter refused, the Respondent abused and threatened to assault him, which was treated as an act of misconduct.
Three charges were indicated in the charge sheet.
The third charge of misconduct was found fully established.
1, hereinafter referred to as Respondent, who was a driver in the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation appellant , was charge sheeted on 16.8.1989 for disciplinary proceedings.
SAGHIR AHMAD, J. Leave granted.
Respondent No.
