On verification, it was found that 61 passengers were travelling without a ticket.
163636 IST Reason On 27th October, 1995 while driving a vehicle on Karnal Haridwar route, the Respondent did number stop the vehicle when the inspection team signalled.
The Respondent submitted his explanation after which an inquiry was companyducted by the Assistant Regional Manager, Haridwar.
The Respondent challenged the award of the labour companyrt by filing a writ petition in the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital.
After remand, the labour companyrt by an award dated 12th September, 2011 upheld the order of dismissal of the Respondent from service.
The writ petition filed by the Respondent challenging the award of the labour companyrt was allowed by the High Court and the labour companyrt was directed to reconsider the matter.
The explanation given by the Respondent that he drove the vehicle due to a call given by the companyductor was number accepted by the inquiry officer.
The appellate authority dismissed the appeal filed by the Respondent on 25th July, 2000.
The High Court while relying upon a judgment of this Court in Managing Director ECIL Hyderabad Ors.
The inquiry officer relied upon the admission of the Respondent that though there was a signal by the inspecting team to stop the vehicle at Bidouli, he stopped the vehicle only after driving for two kilometres.
The Respondent was appointed as a driver with the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ASHWANI KUMAR Date 2017.11.10 Appellants Road Transport Corporation in the year 1989.
The Respondent was placed under suspension on 31st October, 1995 and disciplinary proceedings were initiated by issuance of a charge sheet on 3rd November, 1995.
The disciplinary authority issued a show cause numberice on 26th December, 1996 along with which the inquiry report was supplied to the Respondent.
The inquiry officer further held that the Respondent companyluded with the companyductor and did number stop the vehicle as there were a number of ticketless passengers in the bus.
A reference was made to the labour companyrt which was answered in favour of the Respondent on 15 th November, 2007.
Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the Respondent to the show cause numberice, the disciplinary authority dismissed him from service by an order dated 23rd April, 1997.
It was held that the Respondent was duty bound to stop the vehicle when a signal was given by the inspecting team.
After companysidering the material on record, the inquiry officer found that the charges against the Respondent were proved.
v. B. Karunakar Ors.1 allowed the writ petition and set aside the dismissal order.
NAGESWARA RAO, J. Leave granted.
This Appeal is filed by the employer against the judgment of the High Court by which the order of dismissal of the Respondent driver from service was set aside by the High Court.
