CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.3502 OF 1996 In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India RAGHUBIR PRASAD, SON OF SRI MATHURA RAM, RESIDENT OF DHARAMSALA CHOWK, AURANGABAD, P.S. AURANGABAD, DISTRICT AURANGABAD ------------------------(Petitioner) Versus 1. BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIWAHAN BHAWAN BIRCHAND PATEL PATH, PATNA. 2. MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PATNA. 3. THE SPECIAL OFFICER, BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PATNA. 4. CHIEF OF ADMINISTRATION, BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PATNA. 5. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PATNA. 6. DEPOT SUPERINTENDENT, BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PATNA -----------------------(Respondents) P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.N. SINHA V.N.Sinha, J. 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 the Corporation on the post of Conductor. He has filed this writ application assailing the order of the Managing Director of the Corporation dated 11.8.1995, Annexure-9 whereunder he has been dismissed from the service of the Corporation after conclusion of the departmental proceeding initiated against him. The charge sheet on the basis of which proceeding was taken againt the petitioner is dated 25.6.1987 and is contained in Annexure-5 to this application, wherefrom it appears that petitioner is alleged to have interpolated the vouchers submitted by him and such interpolation was - 2 - noticed by the auditor who verified those vouchers during its audit. He is also alleged to have carried a child to Ranchi on half ticket, although the child was alone and not accompanied by any guardian. He is also alleged to have submitted five number of challan on 26.6.1983 without his signature. 3. Petitioner filed his show cause reply dated 7.5.1991, Annexure-6 asserting that having completed the journey and returned to the depot he submitted his PB/LB book to the voucher checker and the voucher checker never reported any interpolation in the voucher book so submitted by the petitioner and the allegation that he interpolated the vouchers is wholly incorrect and misconceived as his responsibility to preserve the vouchers is over no sooner the vouchers are submitted to the voucher checker, whereafter the same is in the custody of the accounts department of the depot and he cannot be held responsible for any subsequent interpolation. As regards the carriage of child on half ticket petitioner submitted that any passenger who is between 3-12 years of age is allowed to travel on half ticket and the child who was travelling on the bus on a particular day was given ticket on the basis of the assessment of his age. As regards failure of the petitioner to sign five number of challan dated 26.6.1983 it was submitted that such allegation is also not correct as if the petitioner had not signed the challans it should have been brought to the notice of the Depot Superintendent at the relevant time but the attention of the Depot Superintendent was never drawn to such fact and allegation to that effect is made in the chargesheet without there being any basis for such allegation. - 3 - 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the averments made in paragraph-24 of the writ petition further submitted that it is wrong to allege that petitioner refused to cross-examine the witnesses during the enquiry proceeding as a matter of fact no witness has been examined by the Corporation in support of the charges levelled against him, although petitioner appeared during the enquiry proceeding on each and every date but no opportunity was given to him to cross- examine any witness in support of the charge. It has further been stated in the said paragraph that petitioner was not even given the copy of the enquiry report finding him guilty of the charges levelled in the charge sheet. In this connection, reference was also made to the orders of this Court passed in the instant case on 23.3.2000, whereunder this Court having perused the counter affidavit observed that the copy of the enquiry report has not been produced even for perusal of the Court and granted longer time to the counsel for the Corporation to produce the enquiry report as the departmental proceeding file of the petitioner is not being traced. 5. In spite of the orders of this Court dated 23.3.2000 the authorities of the Corporation did not consider it appropriate to trace the file and produce the enquiry report by filing supplementary counter affidavit. It is thus quite evident that copy of the enquiry report has neither been served on the petitioner nor has been made available for perusal by the Court. The impugned dismissal order dated 11.8.1995, Annexure-9 passed without serving copy of the enquiry report on the petitioner is wholly illegal and has to be quashed, which is accordingly, - 4 - quashed overrulling the submission made in the counter affidavit that petitioner has alternative remedy against the impugned order as after admission of the writ case under orders dated 14.5.1997 the authorities of the Corporation are stopped from raising the plea of alternative remedy. Reference in this connection may be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of L. Hirday Narain Versus Income Tax Officer, Bareilly, reported in AIR 1971 Supreme Court 33. 6. Before parting with the writ petition, it is deemed necessary to notice the averments made in paragraph-26 of the writ petition, whereunder petitioner has stated that during the audit of the records of Gaya depot papers were examined by the Junior Auditor Sri Shyam Bihari Pandey who submitted his report dated 20.3.1986 but before Sri Pandey could be invited to become witness in the proceeding initiated againt the petitioner and others Sri Pandey superannuated from service and Sri Banke Bihari Sharma, another Auditor was examined in the proceeding who submitted before the Enquiry Officer that petitioner defalcated a sum of Rs.143.55/- and for such meager amount petitioner could not be punished with major punishment. Aforesaid aspect of the matter should be born by the authorities while considering the future course of action against the petitioner. 7. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Patna High Court, Patna Dated 24th August,2010 NAFR/Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha, J.)