Bench:
Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
Issue:
Whether the onus of proving the misconduct on the part of the conductor lies with the disciplinary committee?
Facts:
- Petitioner was appointed as Conductor in Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation whose rules are governed by the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees Service Regulations 1981& he was removed from service.
- Petitioner was a conductor working on the bus going through the local route of SyanaHapur Marg.
- Ticket checker came on the bus who then found out that 21 people had not taken their ticket.
- The conductor was fired from the job.
Appellant’s contentions:
- The counsel for the petitioner stated that 6 family members had boarded the bus & the head of which refused to pay for the ticket because he stated that he was a government employee, so his family shouldn’t have to pay.
- 9 students had also been on that bus who ran away when they saw the TC.
- And the other remaining were issued tickets on plain papers because the Electronic Ticketing Machine (E.T.M) was not working.
- The statements of the passengers were also not recorded nor was the cash of the conductor checked by the inspecting team, & the onus lies on the respondent organisation to prove the misconduct of the petitioner and not vice versa.
Respondent’s contentions:
- The TC found that that 21 people on the bus were without their respective tickets and it was a high amount which cannot be tolerated.
- The petitioner has had a history of allowing people on the bus without paying for the ticket.
- The petitioner was removed from his job because the disciplinary committee found the charges proved against the petitioner & he was removed from service.
- Thus, rightly his punishment for forfeiting balance of pay was passed.
- Under Sec 124 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988, every person has to pay for the pass or ticket for travelling on a government transportation service.
Final judgement:
- Justice was not given to the petitioner at every stage.
- Only on the basis of suspicion and presumption, he has been removed from his post.
- An enquiry officer shall carry out the entire exercise again in a period of 4 months after this judgement is passed
- The writ petition is partly allowed.
