IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.1321 of 2007 (S/S) Sanjeev Kumar …. Petitioner Versus Chairman, Uttarakhand State Road Transport Corporation, Dehradun and three others ..…. Respondents Dated : December 28, 2010 Hon’ble Nirmal Yadav, J. (Oral) Heard Sri S.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dinesh Gehtori, learned Standing Counsel for the State. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Driver on 25.5.1995. Thereafter his services were regularized and confirmed against the post of Driver. Initially the petitioner submitted a learning licence, issued in his name, which was later on found to be fake. He had got the licence through a broker and therefore had no knowledge that the said licence was a fake one. The petitioner’s services were terminated vide order dated 2.4.2002 on the ground that he had produced fake licence at the time when he was appointed on the post of Driver. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the termination order which also rejected vide order dated 27.5.2006. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents wherein it is stated that at the time of initial appointment, the petitioner, along with the application, submitted driving licence bearing no.S-18570 DDN/87. On verification, the said licence was found to be fake and it was found to be issued in the name of one Sri S.C. Sethi for driving a motorcycle. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and opportunity was given to the petitioner to submit his explanation. The petitioner submitted his reply which was not found to be satisfactory and his services were terminated. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was a regular employee and his services have been terminated without issuing any charge sheet and conducting any enquiry. The petitioner was deprived of his constitutional right of hearing and thus the authorities have violated the principle of natural justice and fair play. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner, along with his explanation/reply to show cause notice, had submitted a valid driving licence and till the date of his termination he was driving the vehicles of the respondents efficiently and diligently. There is nothing on the record to show that any enquiry was conducted by the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in another case having similar facts and circumstances, this Court has set aside the order of punishment of dismissal and had directed the authorities to award some lesser punishment to the said person. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred a judgment passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.1407 of 2003 (S/S), Narendra Pal Singh Vs. Chairman U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Lucknow and others, decided on 18.4.2006. Special appeal (Special Appeal No.30/2006) filed by the respondent-Corporation, against the judgment of the Single Judge, was also dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.6.2006. Thereafter, 2 SLP, filed against the order of this special appeal, was also dismissed by the Apex Court vide order dated 13.11.2006. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to controvert the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the principle of natural justice and giving the parity to the petitioner with Narendra Pal Singh’s case, the order of punishment of dismissal is set aside and it would be in the interest of justice if punishment of withholding three increments with cumulative effect and ‘censure’ entry may be made in the record of the petitioner, is ordered to be awarded. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of finally. (Nirmal Yadav, J.) 28.12.2010 Rajni 3