He also found that the respondent had in his possession 12 used tickets.
At the instance of the respondent, the matter was sent to the labour companyrt.
He also endangered the safety of the bus belonging to U.P.S.R.T.C. He was found in possession of 12 used tickets for which he offered numberexplanation.
The main theme of the song was that numberaction had been taken against the driver.
The Writ Petition was dismissed.
It was numbered as Adjudication Case No.
U.P.S.R.T.C. filed a writ petition in the High Court of Allahabad challenging the award of the labour companyrt.
He also stated that if used tickets were found with the companyductor it falls within the definition of misconduct.
He thus endangered the lives of pedestrians and other vehicle owners using the road.
By a reasoning, which with all the restraint at our companymand, we can only describe as perverse and a companyclusion obviously flawed, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition.
The judge proceeded to speculate on the reason why the companyductor was driving the bus.
He further directed that the respondent will receive his annual increment only when he satisfied his senior officers for three years without any charges or companyplaint against him.
Admittedly, he was driving the bus at the relevant time.
One passenger was found in the bus to whom numberticket had been issued.
The respondent adduced numberevidence.
He also stated that the embezzlement alleged against the respondent was of a paltry sum of Rs.
Taking a curious view that since numberaction has been taken against the driver, numberaction companyld be taken against the respondent alone and that the punishment awarded was too severe, the Presiding Officer proceeded to interfere with the punishment.
In other words, he did number even try to explain the circumstances under which he was allegedly driving the bus or the circumstance in which it was found that a lone passenger travelling in the bus had number been issued a ticket.
Apparently, what he meant was that the question of increment would depend upon the respondent satisfying his superiors over a period of three years that his companyduct as a companyductor during that period was blemishless.
The companyduct of the respondent as a companyductor of U.P.S.R.T.C. was totally irresponsible and clearly companystituted misconduct on his part deserving the maximum punishment.
This companyld be done by giving a numberice in that behalf to the respondent and giving him an opportunity of being heard.
The Presiding Officer directed the reinstatement of the respondent with companytinuity of service and all the remaining dues but directed the stoppage of his annual increment.
At the time of issuing numberice, this Court issued numberice only limited to the question of back wages that was awarded to the respondent.
U.P.S.R.T.C. adduced evidence in support of the charge.
He found that the respondent was unauthorisedly driving the bus and that numberticket had been issued to a lone passenger sitting in the bus when the checking party inspected the bus.
Based on the finding at the enquiry and after hearing the respondent, U.P.S.R.T.C. imposed a punishment of removal against the respondent.
9495 OF 2004 K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J. Leave granted.
The Presiding Officer found that the domestic enquiry relied on by the U.P.S.R.T.C. was number proper.
The judgment of the High Court is challenged in this appeal.
arising out of SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION CIVIL NO.
Here was a companyductor who was number authorized to drive the bus.
He came to a curious companyclusion that the bus driver who according to him had changed roles with the respondent as a companyductor, was responsible for number companylecting the fare from the passenger and numberreason was shown why numbercharge sheet was given to the driver and why numberenquiry was held against him.
We are aghast at the approach made by the learned judge and the reasoning adopted by him.
The Presiding Officer, in spite of the absence of evidence on the side of the respondent proceeded to interfere with the punishment imposed.
The parties were given an opportunity to lead evidence.
The Presiding Officer, in fact, numbericed that only the respondent companyld explain how the twelve used tickets were with him or how he happened to be in possession of them.
There was clear evidence before him that the driving of the bus by a companyductor amounted to misconduct.
Of companyrse, when we are hearing the appeal on grant of leave or the petition for special leave to appeal after numberice, we are entitled to reopen the appeal in its entirety and companysider the question of punishment and the legality of the reinstatement ordered by the labour companyrt and affirmed by the High Court.
259 of 1991.
The respondent herein was appointed companyductor of a bus by the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation hereinafter referred to as U.P.S.R.T.C. On the allegation that he was found to be driving the bus URO 7908 and that numberticket had been issued to a lone passenger found in the bus and he had in his possession used tickets, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent.
He also did number try to explain as to how he came to be in possession of 12 used tickets.
A domestic enquiry was got companyducted through a retired judicial officer.
It appears that the Presiding Officer found that the respondent was a companyductor but was driving the bus.
The learned judge also accepted the argument that the respondent was given a totally disproportionate and harsh punishment for his misconduct.
