Uttarakhand Transport Corporation And Others vs Praveen Ram Kohli

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

The application, seeking condonation of two days’ delay in preferring the Special Appeal, is not opposed by Sri Rajeev Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner and the delay is, therefore, condoned. The application, seeking condonation of two days’ delay in preferring the Special Appeal, stands allowed.

Heard Sri Ashish Joshi, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Corporation and Sri Rajeev Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner.

The present appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1214 of 2009 dated 11.10.2019.

The respondent herein invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by the third respondent (disciplinary authority) dated 31.07.2008 as affirmed by the second-respondent (appellate authority) in his order dated 25.06.2009. The third-respondent in the writ petition had, by his order dated 31.07.2008, imposed on the respondent-writ petitioner the punishment of dismissal from service, and the said order was confirmed by the second respondent-appellate authority.

Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that on 11.10.2006, the respondent writ petitioner was assigned duty as a Conductor of the Passenger Bus, bearing Registration No. UA07(2) / 4801, plying from Pithoragarh Bus Station to Dharchula Bus Station. While the bus was plying between Ogla and Joljeevi, an inspection team, comprising of the Assistant General Manager and the Assistant Passenger Inspector, stopped the Bus for the purpose of checking and inspection, and it was found that tickets had not been issued to five passengers who were travelling in the Bus. A disciplinary inquiry was held and, thereafter, a copy of the inquiry report was furnished to the respondent-writ petitioner giving him an opportunity to submit his reply thereto.

The fact that a copy of the inquiry report was furnished to him, and he had submitted his reply thereto, has been admitted by the respondent-writ petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The dispute in this case relates to non-adherence to the office memorandum dated 30.08.2007 issued by the Managing Director, Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, Dehradun, more particularly to Clause 1(C) thereof, under the heading “Report”, wherein it is specified as under:

“..because the reports of without tickets cases in the department are large in number in comparison of other cases, therefore, special care has to be taken that the statements of without ticket passengers must be recorded. In case, the same is not possible, then their names and addresses have to be noted and, in case, both are not possible, then a note in this regard should definitely be made in the Way Bill at the time of making ‘without ticket’ note as to why the statements of the passengers could not be recorded. Care should also be taken in regard to the same while preparing detailed report thereafter.”

In the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge has held that no reason were assigned by the third-respondent either as to why the Circular dated 30.08.2007 had not been complied with by the inspection team, or why a major penalty was imposed on the petitioner. The learned Single Judge has also faulted the appellants for not furnishing a copy of the inquiry report to the respondent-writ petitioner, and in not inviting his objections; and, instead, in straightway imposing the punishment which the learned Single Judge has held to be in violation of principles of natural justice. This finding of the learned Single Judge is erroneous as the respondent-writ petitioner has himself, in Paragraphs 28 and 29 of his writ-affidavit, referred to an inquiry report having been submitted by the Assistant General Manager (Finance), and that he had submitted a detailed reply to the inquiry report. This finding of the learned Single Judge necessitates being set aside.

While the learned Single Judge may not have been justified in holding that the punishment is disproportionate to the alleged offence, without assigning reasons why he considered it to be so, he was justified in faulting the third-respondent in not assigning reasons for non-compliance, by the inspection team, of the Circular dated 30.08.2007, and for imposing the major punishment of dismissal of service on the petitioner. Having held that the third-respondent ought to have assigned reasons, the learned Single Judge ought to have set aside the order, leaving it open to the third-respondent to pass a reasoned order afresh.

We consider it appropriate, in such circumstances, to set aside the order under appeal, and to also set aside both the orders of the disciplinary authority dated 31.07.2008 and the appellate authority dated 25.06.2009. The third respondent shall pass an order afresh assigning reasons, among others, why non-compliance of the Circular dated 30.08.2007 by the inspection team is not fatal, and why the charges held established necessitated imposition of a major penalty, that too of dismissal from service. The disciplinary authority shall pass an order afresh as directed hereinabove, and in accordance with law. Needless to state that the disciplinary authority shall pass an order afresh uninfluenced by any observations made on merits either in the order under appeal, or in the order now passed by us.

Sri Rajeev Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner, states that the respondent-writ petitioner is due to retire from service on 31st July, 2020, less than a month from now.

We consider it appropriate, in such circumstances, to direct the disciplinary authority to pass an order as directed hereinabove with utmost expedition and, in any event, within three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

The Special Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

Let a certified copy of this order be furnished to the learned counsel for the parties, on payment of the prescribed charges, by 03.07.2020.