Allahabad High Court

1. Heard Shri Ambleshwar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant, learned standing counsel for respondent No. 1 and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 2 to 4.

2. The present intra-court appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 19.09.2025 whereby Writ-A No.14216 of 2025 filed by the appellant challenging an order dated 12.10.2023 passed by respondent No.3 has been disposed of with certain observations and directions.

3. The appellant is working as a driver with UPSRTC (the respondent- Corporation). On 10.07.2023, while he was plying an A.C. bus of the Corporation on a diverted route due to kanwar yatra from Kaushambi to Lucknow, the bus hit a low hanging branch of a tree resulting in damage to the air conditioner installed on the roof of the bus. The appellant was issued a show cause notice dated 14.07.2023 seeking his explanation as to why an amount of Rs.3,84,000/- be not deducted from his salary. The petitioner replied to the same on 19.07.2023 and took the defence that since he was driving on a diverted route on account of kanwar yatra, he was not acquainted with the same. He was following another bus and accidentally the top of the bus came in contact with a low hanging branch of a tree resulting in damage to the A.C. system. It was about 5:00 A.M. in the morning and still dark. The appellant was served a charge-sheet dated 18.08.2023 and he submitted a reply to the charge-sheet on 26.08.2023. According to the appellant, although a date for oral enquiry was fixed but when he visited the office for participating in the enquiry, no proceedings were held. It is also 2 SPLA No. 1114 of 2025 his case that abruptly the enquiry was completed and a adverse report was submitted against him. He was issued a show cause notice on 26.09.2023 to which he replied on 28.09.2023. It appears that in the said proceedings, ultimately an order came to be passed on 12.10.2023 for recovery of Rs.3,84,000/- from the appellant in 73 installments of Rs.4,400/- each from the monthly wages. Specific case of the appellant is that the said order was never served upon him. He came to know of it for the first time when in the month of June-July, 2025, an amount of Rs.5,200/- was deducted from his salary. He is stated to have obtained the order from office of the Assistant Branch Manager on 07.07.2025. The appellant thereafter preferred the writ petition stating that under Regulation 69(5), the limitation for filing the appeal is three months and the same is condonable only upto six months in case sufficient cause is made out. As the said extended period has also expired, therefore, he has been left with no other alternative remedy except to approach the writ court.

4. It seems that the writ petition was opposed by learned counsel for the Corporation on the ground that the appellant had an alternative remedy of filing appeal. The other pleas were also taken by the Corporation including the plea that since the appellant had not denied the occurrence, therefore, he also cannot deny the liability to make good the loss resulting to the Corporation on account of damage to the A.C. system.

5. Learned Single Judge after noticing the contention of counsel for the respondent-Corporation that the appellant had alternative remedy of filing appeal has proceeded to observe that there is not much substance in the defence taken by the appellant as various other buses were also plying on the diverted route and none of those buses met with any accident. Learned Single Judge has further observed that two other issues would still survive for consideration. The first one as noted in the order was that the appellant had not filed any appeal and second one was regarding the quantum of Corporation which could be recovered. It has been held that the order for recovery was based on estimated expenditure and not actual expenditure incurred in repairing the A.C.. After making the said observations, learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition with the following directions: "(a) The petitioner has liberty to file an Appeal, however, since the Court has already returned a finding that explanation given by petitioner has no substance, therefore, only issue which left for 3 SPLA No. 1114 of 2025 consideration is quantum of recovery since on basis of record of this writ petition and on basis of impugned order, it appears that order of quantum of recovery was based on estimated expenditure occurred in the repair of A.C. of the bus and the Court is of the view that it ought to be based on actual cost of repair, therefore, if any Departmental Appeal is filed within two weeks, the Appellate Authority will consider quantum of recovery, that it could not be in excess of cost incurred rather the Appellate Authority can consider it to reduce the quantum of recovery determine on basis of actual expenditure, considering the petitioner is going to retire within few years, since he has declared his present age to be 55 years."

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it was the specific case of the appellant that the order dated 12.10.2023 was not served upon him and he came to know of it for the first time in the month of June-July 2025. It is urged that when the learned Single Judge has relegated the appellant to the remedy of appeal on the issue relating to extent of compensation which could be recovered from the appellant, other issues as regards the legality of the finding relating to negligence on part of the appellant should have been left open for being decided in appeal. He submits that the entire procedure followed by the respondent-Corporation in passing the order dated

12.10.2023 was illegal and in breach of principles of natural justice. He submits that the appellant was not given any opportunity to lead evidence. In such circumstances, it is urged that the finding of negligence recorded against the appellant was not sustainable.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation, on the other hand, tried to support the order of learned Single Judge in respect of the finding of negligence on part of the appellant recorded against him.

8. We have considered rival submissions and perused the pleadings and material on record.

9. In paragraph-41 of the writ petition, the appellant specifically stated that the order dated 12.10.2023 was never served upon him and it came to his knowledge for the first time in the month of June-July 2025, when an amount of Rs.5,200/- was deducted from his salary.

10. In various paragraphs of the writ petition, the appellant has made specific 4 SPLA No. 1114 of 2025 pleadings how the procedure followed by the respondent-Corporation in passing the order dated 12.10.2023 was in violation of principles of natural justice. It has also been specifically contended that the Disciplinary Authority had not applied its independent mind to the representation submitted by the appellant against the findings of the Inquiry Officer and has merely relied upon the enquiry report in passing the order.

11. In case, the contention of the appellant in relation to violation of the principles of natural justice in passing the order dated 12.10.2023 is upheld, the order dated 12.10.2023 would stand vitiated as a whole. The said aspect has not been examined by the learned Single Judge while upholding the finding of negligence and consequently, we are unable to subscribe to the view of the learned Single Judge in relation to the said finding.

12. As learned Single Judge has permitted the appellant to file appeal on the question of compensation which could be recovered from him, in our opinion, the Appellate Authority should also be permitted to examine all other pleas taken by the appellant in challenging the order before the Writ Court as well as also before us.

13. Accordingly, the order of learned Single Judge to the extent finding relating to negligence on part of the appellant has been confirmed is hereby set aside. It is left open to the appellant to challenge the order dated

12.10.2023 in appeal by taking all pleas.

14. The appeal stands disposed of, accordingly.

15. In case, appeal is filed within two weeks from today, it shall be entertained and decided on merits and until the appeal is decided, no further recovery shall be made from the appellant in pursuance of the order dated

12.10.2023. We further clarify that while deciding the appeal, Appellate Authority shall not be influenced by any observation made in the instant order. November 26, 2025 Mukesh Kr. (Siddharth Nandan,J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.)

1. Heard Shri Ambleshwar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant, learned standing counsel for respondent No. 1 and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 2 to 4.

2. The present intra-court appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 19.09.2025 whereby Writ-A No.14216 of 2025 filed by the appellant challenging an order dated 12.10.2023 passed by respondent No.3 has been disposed of with certain observations and directions.

3. The appellant is working as a driver with UPSRTC (the respondent- Corporation). On 10.07.2023, while he was plying an A.C. bus of the Corporation on a diverted route due to kanwar yatra from Kaushambi to Lucknow, the bus hit a low hanging branch of a tree resulting in damage to the air conditioner installed on the roof of the bus. The appellant was issued a show cause notice dated 14.07.2023 seeking his explanation as to why an amount of Rs.3,84,000/- be not deducted from his salary. The petitioner replied to the same on 19.07.2023 and took the defence that since he was driving on a diverted route on account of kanwar yatra, he was not acquainted with the same. He was following another bus and accidentally the top of the bus came in contact with a low hanging branch of a tree resulting in damage to the A.C. system. It was about 5:00 A.M. in the morning and still dark. The appellant was served a charge-sheet dated 18.08.2023 and he submitted a reply to the charge-sheet on 26.08.2023. According to the appellant, although a date for oral enquiry was fixed but when he visited the office for participating in the enquiry, no proceedings were held. It is also 2 SPLA No. 1114 of 2025 his case that abruptly the enquiry was completed and a adverse report was submitted against him. He was issued a show cause notice on 26.09.2023 to which he replied on 28.09.2023. It appears that in the said proceedings, ultimately an order came to be passed on 12.10.2023 for recovery of Rs.3,84,000/- from the appellant in 73 installments of Rs.4,400/- each from the monthly wages. Specific case of the appellant is that the said order was never served upon him. He came to know of it for the first time when in the month of June-July, 2025, an amount of Rs.5,200/- was deducted from his salary. He is stated to have obtained the order from office of the Assistant Branch Manager on 07.07.2025. The appellant thereafter preferred the writ petition stating that under Regulation 69(5), the limitation for filing the appeal is three months and the same is condonable only upto six months in case sufficient cause is made out. As the said extended period has also expired, therefore, he has been left with no other alternative remedy except to approach the writ court.

4. It seems that the writ petition was opposed by learned counsel for the Corporation on the ground that the appellant had an alternative remedy of filing appeal. The other pleas were also taken by the Corporation including the plea that since the appellant had not denied the occurrence, therefore, he also cannot deny the liability to make good the loss resulting to the Corporation on account of damage to the A.C. system.

5. Learned Single Judge after noticing the contention of counsel for the respondent-Corporation that the appellant had alternative remedy of filing appeal has proceeded to observe that there is not much substance in the defence taken by the appellant as various other buses were also plying on the diverted route and none of those buses met with any accident. Learned Single Judge has further observed that two other issues would still survive for consideration. The first one as noted in the order was that the appellant had not filed any appeal and second one was regarding the quantum of Corporation which could be recovered. It has been held that the order for recovery was based on estimated expenditure and not actual expenditure incurred in repairing the A.C.. After making the said observations, learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition with the following directions: "(a) The petitioner has liberty to file an Appeal, however, since the Court has already returned a finding that explanation given by petitioner has no substance, therefore, only issue which left for 3 SPLA No. 1114 of 2025 consideration is quantum of recovery since on basis of record of this writ petition and on basis of impugned order, it appears that order of quantum of recovery was based on estimated expenditure occurred in the repair of A.C. of the bus and the Court is of the view that it ought to be based on actual cost of repair, therefore, if any Departmental Appeal is filed within two weeks, the Appellate Authority will consider quantum of recovery, that it could not be in excess of cost incurred rather the Appellate Authority can consider it to reduce the quantum of recovery determine on basis of actual expenditure, considering the petitioner is going to retire within few years, since he has declared his present age to be 55 years."

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it was the specific case of the appellant that the order dated 12.10.2023 was not served upon him and he came to know of it for the first time in the month of June-July 2025. It is urged that when the learned Single Judge has relegated the appellant to the remedy of appeal on the issue relating to extent of compensation which could be recovered from the appellant, other issues as regards the legality of the finding relating to negligence on part of the appellant should have been left open for being decided in appeal. He submits that the entire procedure followed by the respondent-Corporation in passing the order dated

12.10.2023 was illegal and in breach of principles of natural justice. He submits that the appellant was not given any opportunity to lead evidence. In such circumstances, it is urged that the finding of negligence recorded against the appellant was not sustainable.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation, on the other hand, tried to support the order of learned Single Judge in respect of the finding of negligence on part of the appellant recorded against him.

8. We have considered rival submissions and perused the pleadings and material on record.

9. In paragraph-41 of the writ petition, the appellant specifically stated that the order dated 12.10.2023 was never served upon him and it came to his knowledge for the first time in the month of June-July 2025, when an amount of Rs.5,200/- was deducted from his salary.

10. In various paragraphs of the writ petition, the appellant has made specific 4 SPLA No. 1114 of 2025 pleadings how the procedure followed by the respondent-Corporation in passing the order dated 12.10.2023 was in violation of principles of natural justice. It has also been specifically contended that the Disciplinary Authority had not applied its independent mind to the representation submitted by the appellant against the findings of the Inquiry Officer and has merely relied upon the enquiry report in passing the order.

11. In case, the contention of the appellant in relation to violation of the principles of natural justice in passing the order dated 12.10.2023 is upheld, the order dated 12.10.2023 would stand vitiated as a whole. The said aspect has not been examined by the learned Single Judge while upholding the finding of negligence and consequently, we are unable to subscribe to the view of the learned Single Judge in relation to the said finding.

12. As learned Single Judge has permitted the appellant to file appeal on the question of compensation which could be recovered from him, in our opinion, the Appellate Authority should also be permitted to examine all other pleas taken by the appellant in challenging the order before the Writ Court as well as also before us.

13. Accordingly, the order of learned Single Judge to the extent finding relating to negligence on part of the appellant has been confirmed is hereby set aside. It is left open to the appellant to challenge the order dated

12.10.2023 in appeal by taking all pleas.

14. The appeal stands disposed of, accordingly.

15. In case, appeal is filed within two weeks from today, it shall be entertained and decided on merits and until the appeal is decided, no further recovery shall be made from the appellant in pursuance of the order dated

12.10.2023. We further clarify that while deciding the appeal, Appellate Authority shall not be influenced by any observation made in the instant order. November 26, 2025 Mukesh Kr. (Siddharth Nandan,J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.)