IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 375 of 2008 (S/S) Om Prakash Sirvastava S/o Late Sri Chandra Pal Assistant Traffic Inspector Uttarakhand Parivahan Nigam Tanakpur Depot, Champawat. ….....Petitioner. Versus 1. Uttarakhand Parivahan Nigam, through its Managing Director, 117 Indiranagar Dehradun. 2. Regional Manager Uttarakhand Parivahan Nigam Tanakpur, Champawat. .……….Respondents. Shri M.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajeev Singh Bisht, learned counsel for the respondents. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 22.12.2007, passed by respondent No. 2 (copy of which is Annexure-4 to the writ petition), whereby the petitioner has been awarded minor punishment of withholding five increments for five years, on conclusion of the departmental enquiry, on the department appeal filed by the petitioner. 3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is a Conductor with Uttarakhand Parivahan Nigam (earlier U.P. Road Transport Corporation). On 2 11.05.1990, while he was discharging his duties in bus registration No. UGP 4282, on its way from Tanakpur to Lucknow, checking party intercepted the bus and found that in respect of 19 passengers, there was no entry in the way bill. Petitioner was placed under suspension and departmental enquiry was initiated. After departmental enquiry, the petitioner was removed from service. The petitioner appears to have filed earlier writ petition No. 3690 (S/S) of 2001 (Old No. 11154 of 1991), before the Allahabad High Court, which was transferred to this Court and this Court vide its order date 23.10.2007, allowed the petition holding that removal from service was disproportionate punishment, as in the enquiry the petitioner was found to be only negligent in not filling the way bill, and embezzlement was not proved. It appears that in pursuance to said order, the disciplinary authority reconsidered the matter and again dismissed the petitioner from service but in the departmental appeal, keeping in mind the observations made by this Court in the judgment and order dated 23.10.2007, passed in writ petition No. 3690 (S/S) of 2001, the appeal is allowed and instead of order of dismissal, minor punishment of withholding of five increments for five years was awarded against the petitioner. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents, and after going through the impugned order, passed 3 by the appellate authority, i.e. Managing Director of Uttarakhand Parivahan Nigam, this Court does not find any illegality committed by said authority. The writ petition has no merits. The same is dismissed in limine. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. 22.05.2008 Sweta