Sangeeta Chandra ORDER
Sangeeta Chandra, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the award dated 18.4.2015 and its notification dated 22.8.2015 passed by the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 respectively, and for grant of appropriate relief as a consequence of quashing of the same.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that on the basis of a report made by Senior Foreman dated 3.11.2000 against the respondent No. 1, of misbehavior and a report of the Senior Station In-charge of non plying of bus by the respondent No. 1, who was the driver posted at Foundry Nagar Depot of UPSRTC, a charge sheet was issued to the respondent No. 1, containing two charges. The first charge related to non plying of bus on time and causing financial loss to the Corporation and the second charge related to misbehaviour with the Senior Foreman. It has been stated that in spite of service of charge sheet dated 12.12.2000 and notices issued thereafter by the Inquiry Officer fixing dates on 24.9.2002 and 3.10.2002 and 17.10.2002 and publication of such notices in the newspaper, the respondent No. 1 did not reply to the charge sheet, nor appeared in the hearing fixed by the Inquiry Officer. As a consequence to his non appearance, the Inquiry Officer examined Sri Radhey Shyam Verma, Sri K.K. Sharma and Sri S.D. Sinha the Officers who had made the report against the petitioner and the Officer, who was witness to the misbehaviour of the respondent No. 1 respectively and Sri Shiv Balak - the Bus Station Incharge to prove from the record that the respondent No. 1 had not driven the bus for required number of kilometres, but had drawn salary for the full month, thus causing great financial loss to the Corporation. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report finding the respondent No. 1 guilty of all charges levelled against him on 26.10.2002. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent No. 1 on 28.10.2002 which was sent through registered post and thereafter was also published in the newspaper on 28.11.2002. The respondent No. 1 did not choose to file a reply.
3. The Appointing Authority taking into account the Inquiry report and the failure of the respondent No. 1 to file a reply to the show cause notice, passed the punishment order dated 5.5.2003 dismissing him from service. The dismissal order dated 5.5.2003 was handed over to the respondent No. 1 on 8.5.2003.
4. The respondent No. 1 thereafter raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the respondent No. 2 by the respondent No. 3 and was registered as Reference Case No. 386 of 2003.
5. The reference was contested by the Corporation by filing a reply as well as documentary evidence stating that although the respondent No. 1 was appointed on 18.2.1973 as driver in the Corporation, he did not perform his duties faithfully on one or the other pretext and deliberately caused financial loss to the Corporation. The employee was a habitual offender and raised frivolous objections regarding mechanical defect in the bus entrusted to him to be driven and willfully did not drive the bus. The respondent No. 1 was also guilty of using filthy language and of misbehavior with the officers. The respondent No. 1 deliberately did not accept the charge sheet and notice issued by the Inquiry Officer during enquiry and did not participate in the enquiry, but appeared after the dismissal order was passed and received the same and thereafter raised an industrial dispute on the ground that his services were terminated without holding a f........