SHYAM BAHADUR TRIPATHIversusU.P. STATE PUBLIC SERVICES TRIBUNAL AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1996 INSC 998
- Decided
- 4 September 1996
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The transfer of the enquiry to a departmental officer does not invalidate the enquiry, and a detailed speaking order is not required where the enquiry report and show‑cause process are satisfactory.
Summary
Shyam Bahadur Tripathi, a conductor with the U.P. Road Transport Corporation, was charged with misconduct for failing to issue tickets to 34 of 53 passengers on a bus. An enquiry was ordered, a charge‑sheet was served, and after a show‑cause notice and his explanation, he was removed from service on 8 December 1989, a decision later confirmed on appeal. The petitioner challenged the removal, contending that the enquiry had been improperly transferred from an independent agency to a departmental officer, violating departmental instructions and the principles of natural justice, and that the impugned order was not a speaking order. The Supreme Court held that the transfer of the enquiry to a departmental officer did not vitiate the process, as the departmental rules merely provide guidelines and the enquiry complied with procedural safeguards. The Court also observed that a detailed speaking order was not mandatory where the enquiry report, show‑cause notice, and the employee’s explanation were on record. Consequently, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed, upholding the removal order.
Issues considered
- Whether transferring a departmental enquiry from an independent agency to a departmental officer vitiates the enquiry.
- Whether the absence of a detailed speaking order renders the removal order illegal.
- Whether the principles of natural justice and fair play were violated in the conduct of the enquiry.
Subjects
Judgment
A SHYAM BAHADUR TRIPATHI
• 1
v.
U.P. STATE PUBLIC SERVICES TRIBUNAL AND ORS.
SEPTEMBER 4, 1996
B (K. RAMASWAMY AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.]
Service Law :
Removal from service on charge of misconduct-Bus Conductor not
C issuing tickets to many passengers-Charge sheeted-Enquily trans~erred from
independent agency to a departmental office1~Whether enquiry
vitiated-Held : No-The Enqui1y Officer had submitted elaborate
report-Show cause notice· issued and explanation submitted by
employee-Only thereafter order of removal came to be passed.
D CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C)
No. 16793 of 1996.
'
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.2.96 of the Allahabad High
Court in C.M.W.P. No. 5641 of 1996.
E R.D. Upadhyay and Giridhar G. Upadhyay Ads. for the Petitioner.
The foliowing Order of the Court was delivered :
This is one of the classic instances of notoriety in huge corruption in
running the ,public Corporations. The petitioner was a Conductor. He was
F charged for not issuing tickets to 34 passengers while he was on duty in the
U.P. Road Transport Corporation bus. When the Checking Inspector
signaled for .stoppage of the vehicle, the bus did not stops Ultimately, the
vehicle came to be stopped at a distance of one furlong. When it was
. checked, it was found that the petitioner had given tickets only to 19
passengers out of 53 and 34 passengers were travelling as no tickets were
G issued to them. Consequently, an enquiry was ordered against the
petitioner. Charge-sheet was given and he was removed from service on
December 8, 1989 after it was found that he was guilty of the charge. The
order of removal was confirmed on appeal. The Services Tribunal dis-
missed the petition and in the impugned order dated February 13, 1996
H made in W.P. No. 5641/96 the High Court dismissed the petition in limine.
536
S.B.TRIPATI-!Iv. U.P.STATEPUBLICSERVICESTRIBUNAL 537
f
Thus this Special Leave Petition. . A
Shri Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that
there. was a flagrant violation of departmental instructions in conducting
the enquiry against the petitioner. According to the learned counsel,
instructions had been issued by the Corporation to ~ansfer the departmen-
. tal enquiry to the independent agencies, like retire~~dicial officers. While B
the enquiry was pending before the imp~rtial officers, contrary to the
instructions issued, it was transferred to the. departmental officer. There-
fore, it is in violation of the departmental rules and natural justice and fair
play. We find no force in the contention. The instructions are only proper
guidelines for the authorities. It is an appropriate case where the power to C
entrust the enquiry to an officer of their own department has been exer-
cised. Therefore, conduct of an enquiry by the officer of the department is
not vitiated by any error of law nor is it violative of the principle of fair
play.
It is then contended that the impugned order is not a speaking order; D
therefore, it is vitiated by error of law. We find no force in the contention.
The Enquiry Officer had submitted and elaborate report along with the
report and show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner
has submitted his explanation also. One consideration thereof, the order
of removal came to be passed. Under these circumstances, it was not E
necessary for the High Court to give elaborate reasoning in support of the
conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the charge of mis.conduct.
The special leave petition is accordingly, dismissed.
G.N. Petition dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.