IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 12 of 2009 Om Prakash Sirvastava son of late Sri Chandra Pal, Assistant Traffic Inspector Uttarakhand Parivahand Nigam Tanakpur Depot, Champawat. …… Appellant. Versus Uttarakhand Parivahan Nigam through its Managing Director, 117 Indiranagar Dehradun and another. …….Respondents. Sri Mangal Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the appellant. Sri R.S. Bisht, learned counsel for the respondents. Dated:-12.5.2009 Coram: Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. {Per Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J.} 1. This is special appeal preferred against the Judgment and order dated 22.5.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 375 of 2008, Om Prakash Sirvastava Vs. Uttarakhand Parivahan Nigam and another. 2. Brief facts of the case are that an inquiry was initiated against the appellant in which charge was framed against the appellant that there was no entry in respect of 19 passengers out of 44 passengers in the way bill, who were travelling in the bus. The reply was given by the appellant to the authority concerned submitting that in fact the appellant had distributed tickets to 19 passengers. He 2 also submitted that he is not guilty of any misconduct. After departmental inquiry, it was held that inquiry report shows at the time of interception by the raiding party, the entries were not made by conductor-appellant regarding the tickets of 19 passengers issued from the book of the conductor, and he was found negligent and, therefore, his services were terminated from the Department. 3. The appellant preferred a writ petition bearing no. 11154 of 1991(S/S) before the Allahabad High Court. It was transferred to this Court and was re-numbered as 3690 of 2001 (S/S). This Court, after hearing the entire matter, held that the report of the inquiry officer shows that it was a case of negligence and not of serious misconduct and as such the Court was of the view that the major punishment awarded by the respondent-authorities appears to be disproportionate to the charge proved against the petitioner-appellant and the said charge was quashed and the writ petition was allowed. However, the respondents were given at liberty to pass fresh order of punishment in the light of the observations made in the Judgment. Thereafter, the respondents passed a second termination order on 3.12.2007. The said order was challenged before this Court by way of Writ Petition No. 1787 of 2007 (S/S) and during the pendency of this writ petition the said termination order was recalled by the authority concerned, and the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous with liberty to challenge the subsequent order, if passed by the respondent. Thereafter, the Managing Director passed the impugned order to stop increments for the period of five years. This impugned order was challenged by way of a writ petition before the learned 3 Single Judge and the learned Single Judge, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the writ petition in limine. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned orders. It is apparent from the perusal of the order dated 23.10.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court that the learned Single Judge has held that it is a case of negligence and not of a serious misconduct and he also opined that the punishment awarded by the respondent authorities appears to be disproportionate to the charge proved against the petitioner-appellant. Keeping in view of the fact that the termination order has already been withdrawn and the authority has awarded to stop the increments for a period of five years and the appellant has been found guilty of the negligence during the discharge of his duties, there is no procedural error in awarding the said punishment. Thus, the minor punishment of withdrawing the five increments for five years is proportionate to the charge levelled against the appellant. 5. We do not find that any interference is required in the Judgment of the learned Single Judge. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is hereby affirmed and the special appeal is hereby dismissed in limine. 6. Stay application no. 254 of 2009 stands disposed of accordingly. (B.S.Verma, J.) (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) 12.5.2009 RMY 4