IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINTAL WPSS NO. 149 OF 2001 (Old No.44522/1992) Ravindra Singh (since deceased) through his LH. ...........Petitioner. Versus The U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and others. ..............Respondents. Mr. Mohd. Azim, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Sandeep Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. V.K. Bisht, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Virendra Kaparwan, learned counsel for the respondents. 27th August, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 17th June, 1992 passed by the respondent no. 2 and the order dated 18th August, 1992 passed by respondent no.3. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Mr. Ravindra Singh was appointed as Driver in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Haridwar and he joined the services on 19.5.1989. On 8.10.1990, the petitioner was given an order to drive the Bus from Haridwar to Karnal and was given a duty slip with regard to Bus No. 9795 from haridwar to Karnal. As soon as, the petitioner reached the Bus Station, Haridwar, he was directed to go to Lakheempur by an order communicated to him by the Time Keeper. The petitioner was further directed to go from Haridwar to Lakheempur by Bus No. UMS 8350. The said Bus reached at Lakheempur at about 10 p.m. After parking the Bus, the petitioner went to take meal, but when, he returned to Bus, he found that a large number of passengers had already boarded the Bus. The petitioner was told by the Conductor that he has been asked to go to Roparia and take the passengers to Roparia. The petitioner said that he has never gone on the said route, but he told that the Authorities have directed the Bus to be taken to Roparia. The Conductor told the petitioner that duty slip of in and out will be given at Roparia. The conductor further told the petitioner that he had already distributed the tickets to the passengers. The Bus had passed only half kilometres ahead, when the Inspecting Staff of the U.P.S.R.T.C. came and asked to stop the Bus. The petitioner stopped the Bus. Thereafter, petitioner was given a chargesheet dated 25.10.1990 alleging one charge that the petitioner was directed to take the Bus only upto Lakhimpur but after that the petitioner had taken the bus to Roparia unauthorisedly and on inspection 78 passengers were found without tickets. The Inspecting Staff submitted the report dated 11.10.1990 to the Regional Manager. In the report, it was mentioned that 78 passengers were found without tickets and had inspection not being done, the Conductor would have embezzled an amount of Rs. 1,638/‐. Petitioner submitted his reply on 15.11.1990. In order to inquire about the matter, an Inquiry Officer was appointed. In his report, he has submitted that charge against the Conductor was provided, however, the enquiry report also held that the charge against the petitioner is also proved. After submission of the Inquiry Report, a notice dated 7.8.1991 was issued to the petitioner. In response to that notice, a reply was submitted by the petitioner on 23.8.1991. Thereafter, an order dated 17.6.1992 was issued by the Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C., Dehradun, whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service. 3. Against the said order, the petitioner moved a representation before the Regional Deputy Manager, Western Zone, Meerut, which was rejected vide order dated 18.8.1992. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has come up with this writ petition. 5. This writ petition is connected with Writ Petition No. 974 of 2001 (MS), which was filed by the U.P.S.R.T.C. against the award dated 22.10.1997, whereby the Conductor Pradeep Kumar was reinstated in service and the order of termination was set aside. The said writ petition has been dismissed, meaning thereby, the order passed by the Labour Court has been affirmed and the Conductor has been reinstated in service. 6. The responsibility and duty to take money from the passengers and to give tickets to them and to take the bus from one station to another vests with the Conductor and when the Conductor has been reinstated in service with entire back wages by the order of the Labour Court dated 22.10.1997, the petitioner / Bus Driver has also a good ground to be reinstated in service with the entire back wages. 7. For the reasons recorded above, writ petition is allowed. The order passed by the Area Manager dated 17.6.1992 and order dated 18.8.1992 passed by the respondent no. 3 are quashed. Respondents are directed to give post retrial benefits along with arrears to the heirs of the petitioner as the petitioner Ravindra Singh has died. 8. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 27.8.2008 Rathour