IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13280 of 2010 PRAMOD KUMAR, SON OF LATE MUNESHWAR PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MURAURA, P.O. MURAURA, P.S. BIHARSARIF, DISTRICT NALANDA. Versus 1. THE ADMINISTRATOR, BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BIRCHAND PATEL PATH, PARIWAHAN BHAWAN, PATNA, BIHAR. 2. THE CHIEF OF OPERATION, BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BIRCHAND PATEL PATH, PARIWAHAN BHAWAN, PATNA, BIHAR. 3. THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR-CUM-CHIEF ACCOUNT OFFICER, BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BIRCHAND PATEL PATH, PARIWAHAN BHAWAN, PATNA, BIHAR. 4. THE DEPO SUPERINTENDENT, BANKIPUR DEPOT, BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PATNA. 5. THE DEPO SUPERINTENDENT, BIHARSARIF DEPOT, BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, NALANDA. For the petitioner : Mr. Satya Prakash Singh, Advocate. For the Corporation : Mr. Nand Kumar Singh, Advocate. ----------- 02. 25.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation(hereinafter referred to as the Corporation). 2. Petitioner at the relevant time served as Conductor with the Corporation. He has filed this writ application impugning the order of the Administrator dated 6.7.2010, Annexure-7, whereunder he has been dismissed from service after conclusion of the department proceeding on the ground that he was carrying passengers beyond those who paid fare and purchased ticket. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that four out of seven passengers who were caught by the flying squad on the relevant date travelling without ticket were homeguards and three were students who in spite of demand 2 of fare by the petitioner did not pay their fare. It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in the light of the contents of office order No.273 dated 2.6.2009 any conductor who is found with passengers without ticket to be considered for grant of benefit of doubt on the first occasion and should be dismissed only on the second occasion, provided both the incident has taken place within one year. It is further submitted that present incident is of the year 2007 and in that year no other incident of carrying ticketless passenger was made against the petitioner, as such, in the light of the office order No.273 dated 2.6.2009 only ten times of the amount of ticket of seven passengers travelling without ticket was required to be taken from him and he ought not to have been dismissed from service. 4. Counsel for the Corporation has opposed the prayer. He states that aforesaid aspect can be better appreciated if petitioner approaches labour court as per the provisions contained in the standing order of the Corporation. 5. Accordingly, the writ application is disposed of with direction to the petitioner to assail the impugned dismissal order dated 6.7.2010, Annexure-7 as violative of office order No.273 dated 2.6.2009 before the labour court, Patna as has been suggested by the counsel for the Corporation. Rajesh/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)