Bardani Lal … v. State of U.P. and Others

9. During inquiry the petitioner has examined Sri Ram Khelawan, Clerk deputed for collecting fare from the petitioner, who stated that on 9.5.2005 he received Rs.25,083/- from the petitioner, but he did not receive tickets no.3714832-34 and on inquiry, the petitioner informed that said tickets were torn and kept by the checking staff.

10. Petitioner thereafter submitted an application on

22.7.2005 that certain documents were not provided to him. On 22.7.2005, Sri Vishram Singh, Traffic Inspector appeared before the Inquiry Officer, but petitioner remained absent. Said Officer has recorded his statement and Inquiry Officer has also asked questions on basis of written reply submitted by the petitioner.

11. A specific question, about snatching of margpatra was also asked, to which said officer reiterated same version as mentioned in the Inspection Report and denied allegations of petitioner in specific words. 4 WRIT – A No. - 29707 of 2008

12. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Inquiry Officer submitted a Inquiry Report dated 23.7.2005 that all charges were found to be proved. Consideration of statements as well as questions put by the Inquiry Officer and their respective replies were also dealt with. It was also noted that petitioner has opted not to cross- examine the witnesses despite being present during proceedings. He also failed to engage any person to present his defence despite taking time for same. A copy of the Inquiry Report was submitted to the petitioner along with a Show Cause notice dated 12.12.2005 by the Disciplinary Authority.

13. Petitioner has submitted a detail reply on 19.9.2006 to the show cause notice, reiterating his earlier defence.

14. Subsequently, the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 17.1.2007 after considering the inquiry report and a detail reply submitted by the petitioner by a considered and reasoned order dated 9.2.2007 awarded a major punishment i.e. ‘Removal from Service’ on the petitioner. Relevant part of said order is reproduced hereinafter: “आरो(cid:3)पी(cid:5) पीरिरोचा(cid:9)लक ቛኋ(cid:9)रो(cid:9) क(cid:9)रोण बता(cid:9)ओं(cid:17) नो(cid:3)टि(cid:20)स क(cid:9) लिलखि(cid:24)ता उ्ቈरो अपीनो(cid:28) पी्ቔ टि(cid:30)नो(cid:9)(cid:17)क 23.09.06 ቛኋ(cid:9)रो(cid:9) ቚኔ(cid:28)षि!ता टिकया(cid:9) गया(cid:9) खि$सेሰ& उसक(cid:28) ቛኋ(cid:9)रो(cid:9) अवगता करो(cid:9)या(cid:9) टिक रिरोपी(cid:3)(cid:20)(कता(cid:9)(ओं(cid:17) ቛኋ(cid:9)रो(cid:9) ቌኔ(cid:28)्ቔ(cid:5)या ቚኔबन्धक स(cid:28) लिेሰलकरो ቚኔ(cid:9)ቕኍ- क(cid:28) षिवरू्ቍ !डया(cid:17)्ቔ क(cid:28) ताहता रिरोपी(cid:3)(cid:20)( क2 गई आरो(cid:3)पी(cid:5) ቛኋ(cid:9)रो(cid:9) वह4 ताथ्या अपीनो(cid:28) आरो(cid:3)पी पी्ቔ क(cid:28) उ्ቈरो ेሰ& भी(cid:5) अ(cid:17)टिकता टिकया(cid:28) गया(cid:28) ह7 ताቕኍ(cid:9) इस(cid:5) ቚኔक(cid:9)रो क(cid:28) अन्या आቌኔ(cid:28)पी आरो(cid:3)पी(cid:5) ቛኋ(cid:9)रो(cid:9) लग(cid:9)या(cid:28) गया(cid:28) ह7 $7स(cid:28) (cid:20)(cid:9)इपी ेሰशी(cid:5)नो& ቛኋ(cid:9)रो(cid:9) रिरोपी(cid:3)(cid:20)( (cid:20)(cid:9)इपी करोनो(cid:9) , तात्क(cid:9)ल(cid:5)नो ቌኔ(cid:28)्ቔ(cid:5)या ቚኔबन्धक ቛኋ(cid:9)रो(cid:9) स्(cid:20)(cid:9)फ क(cid:9)रो ेሰ& ब7ठा(cid:9) ल(cid:28)नो(cid:9) क7 शी ब7ग अपीनो(cid:28) कब्$(cid:28) ेሰ& ल(cid:28) ल(cid:28)नो(cid:9) टिडपी(cid:3) ेሰ& चा(cid:17)टिक(cid:17) ग लिलषिपीक ቦኍ(cid:5) रो(cid:9)ेሰ खि(cid:24)ल(cid:9)वनो ቛኋ(cid:9)रो(cid:9) आरो(cid:3)पी(cid:5) क2 पी@रो4 $(cid:9)ेሰ(cid:9) 5 WRIT – A No. - 29707 of 2008 ताल(cid:9)शी(cid:5) करो(cid:9)नो(cid:9) आटि(cid:30)। पीरोन्ताB लिनोध(cid:9)(रिरोता $(cid:9)(cid:17)चा लितालिቕኍ टि(cid:30)नो(cid:9)(cid:17)क

15.07.06 क(cid:3) ቚኔलितापीरो4ቌኔण क(cid:28) (cid:30)Cरो(cid:9)नो आरो(cid:3)पी(cid:5) ቛኋ(cid:9)रो(cid:9) चा(cid:28)टिक(cid:17) ग लिलषिपीक ቦኍ(cid:5) रो(cid:9)ेሰ खि(cid:24)ल(cid:9)वनो स(cid:28) याह ቚኔलितापीरो4ቌኔण नोह4(cid:17) टिकया(cid:9) गया(cid:9) टिक उसक2 ताल(cid:9)शी(cid:5) उनोक(cid:28) ቛኋ(cid:9)रो(cid:9) ल(cid:5) गया(cid:5) ह7 औरो नो ह4 क(cid:3)ई स(cid:9)ቌኚया गव(cid:9)ह ह4 ቚኔस्ताBता क2 टिकया(cid:9) गया(cid:9) $ब टिक आरो(cid:3)पी(cid:5) उ्ሹ $(cid:9)(cid:17)चा लितालिቕኍ ेሰ& उपीखिस्ቕኍता रोह(cid:9) $(cid:9)(cid:17)चा क(cid:9)या(व(cid:9)ह4 ेሰ& हस्ता(cid:9)ቌኔरो भी(cid:5) टिकया(cid:28) गया(cid:28) ह7 । इसस(cid:28) याह स(cid:9)षिबता ह(cid:3)ता(cid:9) ह7 टिक आरो(cid:3)पी(cid:5) नो(cid:28) अपीनो(cid:28) ्ቝቖኋ(cid:9)चा(cid:9)रो एव(cid:17) टिकया(cid:28) गया(cid:28) अभी्ቖ व्यावह(cid:9)रो क(cid:3) लिLपी(cid:9)नो(cid:28) क(cid:28) उቌኔ(cid:28)श्या स(cid:28) ेሰनोग़ሤ(cid:17)ता आध(cid:9)रोटिहनो आቌኔ(cid:28)पी लग(cid:9)या(cid:28) हP आरो(cid:3)पी(cid:5) नो(cid:28) अपीनो(cid:28) उ्ቈरो क(cid:28) पी(cid:28)$ नो(cid:17)0 2 ेሰ& L(cid:9)या(cid:9) ቚኔलिता स(cid:17)लग्नो ब(cid:9)ता अ(cid:17)टिकता क2 ह7 पीरोन्ताB क(cid:3)ई भी(cid:5) L(cid:9)या(cid:9) ቚኔलिता स(cid:17)लग्नो नोह4 टिकया(cid:9) ह7 इसस(cid:28) याह भी(cid:5) स्पीቖኋ ह(cid:3)ता(cid:9) ह7 टिक उसक(cid:28) पी(cid:9)स बचा(cid:9)व ेሰ& क(cid:3)ई भी(cid:5) स(cid:9)ቌኚया/ቚኔेሰ(cid:9)ण नोह4(cid:17) ह7। $(cid:3) उसक(cid:28) कቕኍनो क2 पीBषिቖኋ करोता(cid:9)। आरो(cid:3)पी(cid:5) नो(cid:28) अपीनो(cid:28) उ्ቈरो ेሰ& लिल(cid:24)(cid:9) ह7 टिक ቦኍ(cid:5) स(cid:5) ०आरो० लिस(cid:17)ह ቌኔ(cid:28)्ቔ(cid:5)या ቚኔबन्धक चालिचा(ता भीቖኋ अलिधक(cid:9)रो4 रोह(cid:28) हP पीरोन्ताB आरो(cid:3)पी(cid:5) नो(cid:28) क(cid:3)ई ቚኔेሰ(cid:9)ण ቚኔस्ताBता नोह4(cid:17) टिकया(cid:9) $(cid:3) ्ቝቖኋता(cid:9) क(cid:3) लिस्ቍ करोता(cid:9) । षिबनो(cid:9) टिकस(cid:5) आध(cid:9)रो /ठा(cid:3)स ቚኔेሰ(cid:9)ण क(cid:28) टिकस(cid:5) पीरो ल(cid:9)(cid:17)Lनो, आरो(cid:3)पी लग(cid:9)नो(cid:9) स(cid:17)ሺኔ(cid:28)या अपीरो(cid:9)ध ह7। आरो(cid:3)पी(cid:5) पीरिरोचा(cid:9)लक नो(cid:28) आरो(cid:3)पी पी्ቔ एव(cid:17) क(cid:9)रोण बता(cid:9)ओं(cid:17) नो(cid:3)टि(cid:20)स क(cid:28) उ्ቈरो ेሰ& लिसफ( आध(cid:9)रोह4नो आरो(cid:3)पी ቚኔत्या(cid:9)रो(cid:3)पी क2 ह7। उसनो(cid:28) 21 षिबनो(cid:9) टि(cid:20)क(cid:20) या(cid:9)्ቔ(cid:5) लिनोरो4ቌኔणकता(cid:9)(ओं(cid:17) क(cid:28) स(cid:9)ቕኍ टिकया(cid:28) गया(cid:28) अभी्ቖ व्यावह(cid:9)रो व ेሰ(cid:9)ग( पी्ቔ LTनोनो(cid:28) व षिवभी(cid:9)ग ेሰ& नो $ेሰ(cid:9) करोनो(cid:28) क(cid:28) सम्बन्ध ेሰ& क(cid:3)ई ቚኔेሰ(cid:9)ण / स(cid:9)ቌኚया ቚኔस्ताBता नोह4(cid:17) टिकया(cid:9) ह7 औरो नो ह4 (cid:30)Cरो(cid:9)नो(cid:28) $(cid:9)(cid:17)चा अपीनो(cid:28) बचा(cid:9)व ेሰ& रिरोपी(cid:3)(cid:20)(कता(cid:9)(ओं(cid:17) आटि(cid:30) स(cid:28) क(cid:3)ई ቚኔलितापीरो4ቌኔण ह4 टिकया(cid:9) $ब टिक (cid:30)Cरो(cid:9)नो(cid:28) $(cid:9)(cid:17)चा लितालिቕኍयाV ेሰ& उपीखिस्ቕኍलिता रोह(cid:9) ह7 बखिWक आरो(cid:3)पी(cid:5) पीरिरोचा(cid:9)लक आरो(cid:3)पीV क(cid:3) गलता लिस्ቍ नो करो पी(cid:9)नो(cid:28) , सत्याता(cid:9) क(cid:9) स(cid:9)ेሰनो(cid:9) नो करो पी(cid:9)नो(cid:28) क2 खिस्ቕኍलिता ेሰ& हठाधलिेሰ(ता(cid:9) क(cid:3) अपीनो(cid:9)ता(cid:28) हBया(cid:28) $(cid:9)(cid:17)चा अलिधक(cid:9)रो4 क(cid:28) लिनो(cid:30)XशीV क2 अवह(cid:28)लनो(cid:9) करोता(cid:28) हBया(cid:28) $(cid:9)(cid:17)चा क(cid:9)या(व(cid:9)ह4 ेሰ& सहया(cid:3)ग नोह4(cid:17) टिकया(cid:9) गया(cid:9) , $(cid:9)(cid:17)चा अलिधक(cid:9)रो4 नो(cid:28) भी(cid:5) अपीनो(cid:28) $(cid:9)(cid:17)चा लिनोष्क!( ेሰ& खि$सक(cid:9) स्पीቖኋ उWल(cid:28)(cid:24) टिकया(cid:9) ह7 । इस(cid:5) ेሰ(cid:17)शी(cid:9) स(cid:28) आरो(cid:3)पी(cid:5) नो(cid:28) अपीनो(cid:28) पी्ቔ टि(cid:30)नो(cid:9)(cid:17)क 15.07.05 ቛኋ(cid:9)रो(cid:9) ቦኍ(cid:5) अ$या (cid:30)4खिቌኔता शी(cid:9)(cid:24)(cid:9) ेሰ(cid:17)्ቔ(cid:5) रो(cid:3)डव(cid:28)$ केሰ(चा(cid:9)रो4 स(cid:17)घ फ$लग(cid:17)$ टिडपी(cid:3) क(cid:3) अपीनो(cid:9) 6 WRIT – A No. - 29707 of 2008 ቚኔलितालिनोध नो(cid:9)लिेሰता करोनो(cid:28) स(cid:17)बन्ध(cid:5) ቚኔ(cid:9)ቕኍ(नो(cid:9) पी्ቔ $(cid:9)(cid:17)चा अलिधक(cid:9)रो4 क(cid:3) ቚኔ(cid:9)्቎ करो(cid:9)या(cid:9) ቕኍ(cid:9) खि$सेሰ& ቚኔलितालिनोलिध क2 सहेሰलिता आवश्याक ह(cid:3)ता(cid:5) ह7 पीरोन्ताB ቦኍ(cid:5) अ$या (cid:30)4खिቌኔता क(cid:28) षिबनो(cid:9) सहेሰलिता क(cid:28) पी्ቔ ቚኔस्ताBता टिकया(cid:9) गया(cid:9)। इस(cid:5) ቚኔक(cid:9)रो पीBनो\ आरो(cid:3)पी(cid:5) नो(cid:28) अपीनो(cid:28) पी्ቔ टि(cid:30)नो(cid:9)(cid:17)क

22.07.05 ቛኋ(cid:9)रो(cid:9) अन्या टिकस(cid:5) ቚኔलितालिनोलिध ल(cid:9)नो(cid:28) क2 ब(cid:9)ता कह4 गई खि$सेሰ& ቚኔलितालिनोलिध क(cid:9) नो(cid:9)ेሰ ताक उWल(cid:28)(cid:24) नोह4(cid:17) टिकया(cid:9) गया(cid:9)। इसस(cid:28) स्वता\ स्पीቖኋ ह(cid:3)ता(cid:9) ह7 टिक आरो(cid:3)पी(cid:5) क2 सत्याता(cid:9) क(cid:9) स(cid:9)ेሰनो(cid:9) नो करो सकनो(cid:28) करो सकनो(cid:28) क2 खिस्ቕኍलिता ेሰ& $(cid:9)(cid:17)चा क(cid:9)या(व(cid:9)ह4 क(cid:3) ब(cid:9)लिधता करोता(cid:28) हBया(cid:28) लखिम्बता रो(cid:24)नो(cid:9) चा(cid:9)हता(cid:9) ቕኍ(cid:9)। $(cid:3) ेሰ(cid:9)्ቔ क(cid:9)नो@नो पी(cid:28)शीबन्(cid:30)4 क2 क(cid:9)या(व(cid:9)ह4 ह7। आरो(cid:3)पी(cid:5) पीरिरोचा(cid:9)लक नो(cid:28) अपीनो(cid:28) पी्ቔ टि(cid:30)नो(cid:9)(cid:17)क

9.05.05 ेሰ& स्वता\ अ(cid:17)टिकता करो स्व(cid:5)क(cid:9)रो टिकया(cid:9) ह7 टिक उसक2 व(cid:9)हनो ेሰ& पी(cid:9)(cid:17)चा या(cid:9)्ቔ(cid:5) षिबनो(cid:9) टि(cid:20)क(cid:20) ቕኍ(cid:28) इसस(cid:28) स्वता\ लिस्ቍ ह7 टिक उसक(cid:28) ቛኋ(cid:9)रो(cid:9) टिकरो(cid:9)या(cid:28) क2 धनोरो(cid:9)लिशी ቚኔ(cid:9)्቎ करो या(cid:9)षि्ቔयाV क(cid:3) षिबनो(cid:9) टि(cid:20)क(cid:20) या(cid:9)्ቔ(cid:9) करो(cid:9) रोह(cid:9) ቕኍ(cid:9)। याटि(cid:30) बस क(cid:9) औचाक लिनोरो4ቌኔण नो टिकया(cid:9) गया(cid:9) ह(cid:3)ता(cid:9) ता(cid:3) आरो(cid:3)पी(cid:5) अपीनो(cid:28) उቌኔ(cid:28)श्या ेሰ& सफल ह(cid:3) $(cid:9)ता(cid:9) । ्ቝቖኋ(cid:9)चा(cid:9)रो पीक़ቨ(cid:28) $(cid:9)नो(cid:28) क2 खिस्ቕኍलिता $(cid:9)नो(cid:28) क2 खिस्ቕኍलिता ेሰ& लिनोरो4ቌኔण्कता(cid:9)(ओं(cid:17) स(cid:28) अभी्ቖ व्यावह(cid:9)रो टिकया(cid:9) $(cid:9)नो(cid:9) , ेሰ(cid:9)ग( पी्ቔ स(cid:17)0 0963900 क2 (cid:30)(cid:3)नोV ቚኔलिताया(cid:9)(cid:17) LTनोकरो टि(cid:20)प्पीण(cid:5) नो अ(cid:17)टिकता करोनो(cid:28) (cid:30)(cid:28)नो(cid:9) औरो ग(cid:9)याब करो (cid:30)(cid:28)नो(cid:28) पीरो आरो(cid:3)पी ቚኔत्या(cid:9)रो(cid:3)पी करो ्ቝቖኋ(cid:9)चा(cid:9)रो, क(cid:3) लिLपी(cid:9)नो(cid:28) क(cid:9) भीरोसक ቚኔया(cid:9)स टिकया(cid:9) गया(cid:9) ह7 स(cid:9)ቕኍ ह4 ेሰ(cid:9)्ቔ क(cid:9)नो@नो पी(cid:28)शीबन्(cid:30)4 क2 गई ह7। आरो(cid:3)पी(cid:5) पीरिरोचा(cid:9)लक ቛኋ(cid:9)रो(cid:9) आरो(cid:3)पीV पीरो गलिताशी(cid:5)ल क(cid:9)या(व(cid:9)ह4/$(cid:9)(cid:17)चा क(cid:9)या(व(cid:9)ह4 क(cid:3) ेሰ(cid:9)्ቔ स्ቕኍलिगता रो(cid:24)नो(cid:28) क(cid:28) लिलए लग(cid:9)ता(cid:9)रो ቚኔया(cid:9)स टिकया(cid:9) $(cid:9)ता(cid:9) रोह(cid:9) ह7 बचा(cid:9)व ेሰ& क(cid:3)ई ቚኔेሰ(cid:9)ण, स(cid:9)ቌኚया ቚኔस्ताBता करोनो(cid:28) क(cid:9) ቚኔया(cid:9)स नोह4(cid:17) टिकया(cid:9) गया(cid:9) ताቕኍ(cid:9) $(cid:9)(cid:17)चा क(cid:9)या(व(cid:9)ह4 क(cid:3) (cid:30)Bभी(cid:9)(वनो(cid:9)पी@ण( कह(cid:9) गया(cid:9)। पीरिरोचा(cid:9)लक नो(cid:28) क(cid:9)रोण बता(cid:9)ओं(cid:17) नो(cid:3)टि(cid:20)स क(cid:28) उ्ቈरो ेሰ& कह(cid:9) ह7 टिक ቦኍ(cid:5) षिवቦኍ(cid:9)ेሰ लिस(cid:17)ह या(cid:9)ता(cid:9)या(cid:9)ता अध(cid:5)ቌኔक फता(cid:28)हपीBरो टिडपीV ेሰ& ता7नो(cid:9)ता(cid:5) क(cid:28) सेሰया स(cid:28) ቚኔया(cid:9)\ धनो उग(cid:9)ह4 क(cid:9) ቚኔया(cid:9)स करोता(cid:28) ቕኍ(cid:28) ताቕኍ(cid:9) फ$- क(cid:28) स लिल(cid:24)नो(cid:28) क2 धेሰक2 (cid:30)(cid:28)ता(cid:28) रोहता(cid:28) ቕኍ(cid:28)। इस घ(cid:20)नो(cid:9) क(cid:28) पी@व( कभी(cid:5) भी(cid:5) आरो(cid:3)पी(cid:5) ቛኋ(cid:9)रो(cid:9) नो ता(cid:3) उच्चा अलिधक(cid:9)रिरोयाV क(cid:3) इसक2 लिशीक(cid:9)याता क2 गई औरो नो ह4 इस ब(cid:9)ता क2 टिकस(cid:5) ቕኍ(cid:9)नो(cid:28) 7 WRIT – A No. - 29707 of 2008 ेሰ& एफ०आई०आरो० ह4 (cid:30)$( करो(cid:9)ई गई ह7। अस्ताB याह आरो(cid:3)पी ेሰनोगढन्ता , कWपीनो(cid:9) पीरो आध(cid:9)रिरोता ह7 ेሰ(cid:9)्ቔ क(cid:9)नो@नो(cid:5) पी(cid:28)शीबन्(cid:30)4 ह(cid:28)ताB आरो(cid:3)पी लग(cid:9)या(cid:9) गया(cid:9) ह7। ቚኔकरोण पी्ቔ(cid:9)वल(cid:5) स(cid:28) उपीलब्ध सेሰस्ता ቚኔपी्ቔV क2 भील(cid:5) भी(cid:9)bलिता अध्यायानो करोनो(cid:28), आरो(cid:3)पी(cid:5) पीरिरोचा(cid:9)लक क(cid:28) स(cid:28)व(cid:9) इलिताह(cid:9)स क(cid:9) अध्यायानो करोनो(cid:28) क(cid:28) पीቐኋ(cid:9)ता ेሰ7 इस लिनोष्क!( पीरो पीहB (cid:17)चा(cid:9)ता(cid:9) ह@ (cid:17) टिक उपीरो(cid:3)्ሹ क(cid:28) आध(cid:9)रो पीरो अरो(cid:3)पी(cid:5) पीरिरोचा(cid:9)लक ቛኋ(cid:9)रो(cid:9) (cid:30)ण्ड क(cid:28) बचा(cid:9)व ेሰ& ቚኔस्ताBता लिलखि(cid:24)ता ቚኔलिताव(cid:28)(cid:30)नो पी@ण(ताया(cid:9) अस(cid:17)ता(cid:3)!$नोक पी(cid:9)या(cid:28) $(cid:9)नो(cid:28) क2 खिस्ቕኍलिता ेሰ& $(cid:9)(cid:17)चा(cid:3)पीरो(cid:9)न्ता ቚኔेሰ(cid:9)खिणता आरो(cid:3)पीV क(cid:28) ቚኔलिता आरो(cid:3)पी(cid:5) पीरिरोचा(cid:9)लक क(cid:3) उ्ቈरो(cid:30)(cid:9)या(cid:5) पी(cid:9)ता(cid:28) हBए (cid:30)ण्ड स्वरूपी क(cid:9)रोण बता(cid:9)ओं(cid:17) नो(cid:3)टि(cid:20)स ेሰ& ቚኔस्ता(cid:9)षिवता (cid:30)ण्ड क(cid:28) अनोBरूपी (cid:30)ण्डस्वरूपी ቦኍ(cid:5) बरो(cid:30)(cid:9)नो(cid:5) ल(cid:9)ल पीरिरोचा(cid:9)लक फ$लग(cid:17)$ टिडपी(cid:3) क(cid:3) लिनोलम्बनो क(cid:9)ल क(cid:9) अवशी(cid:28)! व(cid:28)तानो $ब्ता करोता(cid:28) हBए स(cid:28)व(cid:9) स(cid:28) पीeቕኍक टिकया(cid:9) $(cid:9)ता(cid:9) ह7 ।”

15. Petitioner thereafter filed an Appeal against the order dated 9.2.2007 before the Appellate Authority, however, the same was dismissed vide order dated

28.4.2007. A revision thereof was also dismissed vide order dated 23.5.2008.

16. In the present writ petition orders dated 17.1.2007

28.4.2007 and 23.5.2008 are impugned.

17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred an application made by the petitioner on the very next date of inspection i.e. 9.5.2005 that petitioner was not carrying any passenger without ticket, rather, Traffic Inspector with malafide intention has made the Inquiry Report since the petitioner has refused to pay bribe.

18. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has asked for certain documents, but same were not provided and this was the reason that he was 8 WRIT – A No. - 29707 of 2008 not able to place his case properly before the Inquiry Officer. However, he has filed a very detail reply before the Disciplinary Authority which was erroneously rejected and order of maximum punishment i.e. ‘Removal from Service’ was passed.

19. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment passed by Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar Agarwal Vs. General Manager-II & Appointing Authority, State Bank of India & Ors., (2015) 15 SCC 184 and on judgments of this Court in Jagmohan Vs. State of U.P. & 2 Ors, Neutral Citation No.2025:AHC:29196 and in Writ-C No.1610 of 2018, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Reg. Office Meerut Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P. Meerut & Anr.

20. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned orders and submitted that principles of natural justice were substantially followed. Petitioner on his own has failed to appear before the Inquiry Officer. Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of Traffic Inspector and has asked questions based on the reply submitted by petitioner also. Petitioner has failed to produce any evidence in respect of his repeated contention that the inspection report was factually incorrect.

21. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

22. From perusal of records, it is clear that principles of natural justice and due process provided for conducting 9 WRIT – A No. - 29707 of 2008 disciplinary proceeding was followed in the present case since a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner to which he has filed a short reply. The petitioner has produced a witness, however, thereafter on his own has opted not to appear before the Inquiry Officer despite notice, therefore, Inquiry Officer has recorded the statement of Traffic Inspector and has asked questions in terms of the objections made by the petitioner by way of a short reply.

23. The Inquiry Officer after considering the materials on record found all charges proved against the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority has considered a detail reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice and by a reasoned order, concur the finding returned by the Inquiry Officer and passed an order of maximum punishment of ‘Removal from Service’. Appeal and Revision thereof were also dismissed by reasoned orders.

24. In the aforesaid circumstances, there is no procedural error in the decision making process and in such circumstances there is a very limited scope of review in the disciplinary proceedings.

25. Now the Court proceeds to consider as to whether defence put by the petitioner was a plausible defence. In this regard, Court takes note of a judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Bhupinderpal Singh Gill Vs. State of Punjab & Ors, 2025 SCC OnLine SC

113. Relevant paragraphs thereof are reproduced hereinafter: “33. Certain generic principles governing interference with orders of punishment that are passed following inquiry proceedings have evolved over a period of time. Law is well 10 WRIT – A No. - 29707 of 2008 settled that an administrative order punishing a delinquent employee is not ordinarily subject to correction in judicial review because the disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. If there is some legal evidence on which the findings can be based, then adequacy or even reliability of that evidence is not a matter for canvassing before the high court in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, should on consideration of the materials on record, the court be satisfied that there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice, or that the inquiry proceedings have been conducted contrary to statutory regulations prescribing the mode of such inquiry, or that the ultimate decision of the disciplinary authority is vitiated by considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case, or that the conclusion of the disciplinary authority is ex facie arbitrary or capricious, so much so that no reasonable person could have arrived at such conclusion, or there is any other ground very similar to the above, the high court may in the exercise of its discretion interfere to set things right. After all, public servants to whom Article 311 of the Constitution apply do enjoy certain procedural safeguards, enforcement of which by the high court can legitimately be urged by such servants depending upon the extent of breach that is manifestly demonstrated.

34. It would further be of immense profit, at this stage, to consider a specific principle which is tailored to the particular situation and could clinch the issue. The Constitution Bench of this Court, speaking through Hon'ble P.B. Gajendragadkar, J., in Union of India v. H.C. Goel (1964) 4 SCR 718 laid down a specific test which could be applied if a contention were raised that the conclusion is based on no evidence. Relevant passages from the said decision evincing one of the two questions arising for decision and the answer thereto, read as follows: “1. Two short questions of law arise for our decision in the present appeal. The first question is ... ; and the other question is whether the High Court in dealing with a writ petition filed by a GovernmentOfficer who has been dismissed from Government service is entitledto hold that the conclusion reached by the Government in regard tohis misconduct if (sic, is) not supported by any evidence at all. Asour judgment will show, we are inclined to answer both thequestions in the affirmative. Thus, the appellant, the Union of India, succeeds on the first point, but fails on the second. ...

20. ... It still remains to be considered whether the respondent is not right when he contends that in the circumstances of this case,the conclusion of the Government is based on no evidence whatever. It is a conclusion which is perverse and, therefore, suffers from such an obvious and patent error on the face of the record that the High Court would be justified in quashing it. In 11 WRIT – A No. - 29707 of 2008 dealing with writ petitions filed by public servants who have been dismissed, or otherwise dealt with so as to attract Article 311(2), the High Court under Article 226 has jurisdiction to enquire whether the conclusion of the Government on which the impugned order of dismissal rests is not supported by any evidence at all. It is true that the order of dismissal which may be passed against a Government servant found guilty of misconduct, can be described as an administrative order; nevertheless, the proceedings held against such a public servant under the statutory rules to determine whether he is guilty of the charges framed against him are in the nature of quasi-judicial proceedings and there can be little doubt that a writ of certiorari, for instance, can be claimed by a public servant if he is able to satisfy the High Court that the ultimate conclusion of the Government in the said proceedings, which is the basis of his dismissal, is based on no evidence....

23. ... In exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 on such a plea, the High Court cannot consider the question about the sufficiency or adequacy of evidence in support of a particular conclusion. That is a matter which is within the competence of the authority which deals with the question; but the High Court can and must enquire whether there is any evidence at all in support of the impugned conclusion. In other words, if the whole of the evidence led in the enquiry is accepted as true, does the conclusion follow that the charge in question is proved against the respondent? This approach will avoid weighing the evidence. It will take the evidence as it stands and only examine whether on that evidence illegally (sic, legally) the impugned conclusion follows or not. ...

26. ... Though we fully appreciate the anxiety of the appellant to root out corruption from public service, we cannot ignore the fact that in carrying out the said purpose, mere suspicion should not be allowed to take the place of proof even in domestic enquiries. It may be that the technical rules which govern criminal trials in courts may not necessarily apply to disciplinary proceedings, but nevertheless, the principle that in punishing the guilty scrupulous care must be taken to see that the innocent are not punished, applies as much to regular criminal trials as to disciplinary enquires held under the statutory rules. ...” (emphasis supplied)

35. It also needs to be emphasised that although the traditional concept of natural justice comprises of the two rules that prohibit anyone from being condemned unheard and anyone from being a judge of his own cause, jurisprudence on natural justice principles have seen a distinct shift ever since the decision in Maneka Gandhi v. India (1978) 1 SCC 248 constitutionalised principles of natural justice, as held in Madhayamam 12 WRIT – A No. - 29707 of 2008 Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India (2023) 13 SCC 401. Drawing inspiration from such authorities, it would be apt to observe that in relation to disciplinary proceedings, subject to just exceptions, natural justice would envisage observance of procedural fairness before holding a public servant guilty of misconduct and imposing a punishment on him for such misconduct. While it is true that principles of natural justice supplement, and not supplant, the law, such principles have been declared by this Court to be a constituent feature of Article 14. Validity of any disciplinary action,whenever questioned, has to be tested on the touchstone of Articles 14, 16 and 21 as well as Article 311(2), wherever applicable. To test whether interference is warranted, this Court has laid down that thescrutiny ought to be confined to finding out whether the disciplinary proceedings have been conducted fairly; if not, an inference can be drawn that this has caused prejudice to the charged employee. Be that as it may, there can be no gainsaying that the consequences of violation of a fair procedure, which principles of natural justice embody, in a given situation has to be considered on a case-by-case basis bearing in mind that judicial review is not intended to be an appeal in disguise.”

26. The contents of the Inspection Report and the defence submitted by the petitioner are quite different. According to Traffic Inspector in the bus in all 75 persons were travelling, out of which 21 passengers were travelling without tickets, whereas according to the petitioner at that time only 59 persons were travelling out of which tickets were already issued to 54 persons and remaining 5 persons were police personnels and two associates, who were travelling without tickets.

27. In order to prove the case against the petitioner Traffic Inspector has appeared before the Inquiry Officer and has reiterated contents of the Inspection Report with specific averment that petitioner has snatched the margpatra and since petitioner despite notice has opted not to appear, therefore, Inquiry Officer has asked questions on basis of short reply submitted by the petitioner and Traffic Inspector has reiterated the same version made in the Inspection Report. 13 WRIT – A No. - 29707 of 2008

28. In order to substantiate his defence, petitioner ought to have produced some witnesses or substantive material however, he failed to do so, which goes adverse to his defence. The figure of passengers travelling in bus as put by the petitioner was not proved.

29. The explanation given in the written reply by the petitioner about allegations of bribe could not be accepted in absence of any material and a vague allegation without any supportive material could not be accepted, therefore, on facts of the present case, judgments placed by the counsel for petitioner are distinguishable and since charges against the petitioner are serious which amounts to major misconduct, therefore, in such circumstances, punishment of ‘Removal from Service’ is not shockingly disproportionate.

30. In aforesaid circumstances, principle of law as reiterated in Bhupinderpal Singh Gill (supra) if applied no case of interference under writ jurisdiction is made out, since it is not a case where principles of natural justice were not followed, it is not a case of ‘no evidence’ and no perversity was shown.

31. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.) September 23, 2025 SB SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

9. During inquiry the petitioner has examined Sri Ram Khelawan, Clerk deputed for collecting fare from the petitioner, who stated that on 9.5.2005 he received Rs.25,083/- from the petitioner, but he did not receive tickets no.3714832-34 and on inquiry, the petitioner informed that said tickets were torn and kept by the checking staff.

10. Petitioner thereafter submitted an application on

22.7.2005 that certain documents were not provided to him. On 22.7.2005, Sri Vishram Singh, Traffic Inspector appeared before the Inquiry Officer, but petitioner remained absent. Said Officer has recorded his statement and Inquiry Officer has also asked questions on basis of written reply submitted by the petitioner.

11. A specific question, about snatching of margpatra was also asked, to which said officer reiterated same version as mentioned in the Inspection Report and denied allegations of petitioner in specific words. 4 WRIT – A No. - 29707 of 2008

12. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Inquiry Officer submitted a Inquiry Report dated 23.7.2005 that all charges were found to be proved. Consideration of statements as well as questions put by the Inquiry Officer and their respective replies were also dealt with. It was also noted that petitioner has opted not to cross- examine the witnesses despite being present during proceedings. He also failed to engage any person to present his defence despite taking time for same. A copy of the Inquiry Report was submitted to the petitioner along with a Show Cause notice dated 12.12.2005 by the Disciplinary Authority.

13. Petitioner has submitted a detail reply on 19.9.2006 to the show cause notice, reiterating his earlier defence.

14. Subsequently, the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 17.1.2007 after considering the inquiry report and a detail reply submitted by the petitioner by a considered and reasoned order dated 9.2.2007 awarded a major punishment i.e. ‘Removal from Service’ on the petitioner. Relevant part of said order is reproduced hereinafter: “आरो(cid:3)पी(cid:5) पीरिरोचा(cid:9)लक ቛኋ(cid:9)रो(cid:9) क(cid:9)रोण बता(cid:9)ओं(cid:17) नो(cid:3)टि(cid:20)स क(cid:9) लिलखि(cid:24)ता उ्ቈरो अपीनो(cid:28) पी्ቔ टि(cid:30)नो(cid:9)(cid:17)क 23.09.06 ቛኋ(cid:9)रो(cid:9) ቚኔ(cid:28)षि!ता टिकया(cid:9) गया(cid:9) खि$सेሰ& उसक(cid:28) ቛኋ(cid:9)रो(cid:9) अवगता करो(cid:9)या(cid:9) टिक रिरोपी(cid:3)(cid:20)(कता(cid:9)(ओं(cid:17) ቛኋ(cid:9)रो(cid:9) ቌኔ(cid:28)्ቔ(cid:5)या ቚኔबन्धक स(cid:28) लिेሰलकरो ቚኔ(cid:9)ቕኍ- क(cid:28) षिवरू्ቍ !डया(cid:17)्ቔ क(cid:28) ताहता रिरोपी(cid:3)(cid:20)( क2 गई आरो(cid:3)पी(cid:5) ቛኋ(cid:9)रो(cid:9) वह4 ताथ्या अपीनो(cid:28) आरो(cid:3)पी पी्ቔ क(cid:28) उ्ቈरो ेሰ& भी(cid:5) अ(cid:17)टिकता टिकया(cid:28) गया(cid:28) ह7 ताቕኍ(cid:9) इस(cid:5) ቚኔक(cid:9)रो क(cid:28) अन्या आቌኔ(cid:28)पी आरो(cid:3)पी(cid:5) ቛኋ(cid:9)रो(cid:9) लग(cid:9)या(cid:28) गया(cid:28) ह7 $7स(cid:28) (cid:20)(cid:9)इपी ेሰशी(cid:5)नो& ቛኋ(cid:9)रो(cid:9) रिरोपी(cid:3)(cid:20)( (cid:20)(cid:9)इपी करोनो(cid:9) , तात्क(cid:9)ल(cid:5)नो ቌኔ(cid:28)्ቔ(cid:5)या ቚኔबन्धक ቛኋ(cid:9)रो(cid:9) स्(cid:20)(cid:9)फ क(cid:9)रो ेሰ& ब7ठा(cid:9) ल(cid:28)नो(cid:9) क7 शी ब7ग अपीनो(cid:28) कब्$(cid:28) ेሰ& ल(cid:28) ल(cid:28)नो(cid:9) टिडपी(cid:3) ेሰ& चा(cid:17)टिक(cid:17) ग लिलषिपीक ቦኍ(cid:5) रो(cid:9)ेሰ खि(cid:24)ल(cid:9)वनो ቛኋ(cid:9)रो(cid:9) आरो(cid:3)पी(cid:5) क2 पी@रो4 $(cid:9)ेሰ(cid:9) 5 WRIT – A No. - 29707 of 2008 ताल(cid:9)शी(cid:5) करो(cid:9)नो(cid:9) आटि(cid:30)। पीरोन्ताB लिनोध(cid:9)(रिरोता $(cid:9)(cid:17)चा लितालिቕኍ टि(cid:30)नो(cid:9)(cid:17)क

15.07.06 क(cid:3) ቚኔलितापीरो4ቌኔण क(cid:28) (cid:30)Cरो(cid:9)नो आरो(cid:3)पी(cid:5) ቛኋ(cid:9)रो(cid:9) चा(cid:28)टिक(cid:17) ग लिलषिपीक ቦኍ(cid:5) रो(cid:9)ेሰ खि(cid:24)ल(cid:9)वनो स(cid:28) याह ቚኔलितापीरो4ቌኔण नोह4(cid:17) टिकया(cid:9) गया(cid:9) टिक उसक2 ताल(cid:9)शी(cid:5) उनोक(cid:28) ቛኋ(cid:9)रो(cid:9) ल(cid:5) गया(cid:5) ह7 औरो नो ह4 क(cid:3)ई स(cid:9)ቌኚया गव(cid:9)ह ह4 ቚኔस्ताBता क2 टिकया(cid:9) गया(cid:9) $ब टिक आरो(cid:3)पी(cid:5) उ्ሹ $(cid:9)(cid:17)चा लितालिቕኍ ेሰ& उपीखिस्ቕኍता रोह(cid:9) $(cid:9)(cid:17)चा क(cid:9)या(व(cid:9)ह4 ेሰ& हस्ता(cid:9)ቌኔरो भी(cid:5) टिकया(cid:28) गया(cid:28) ह7 । इसस(cid:28) याह स(cid:9)षिबता ह(cid:3)ता(cid:9) ह7 टिक आरो(cid:3)पी(cid:5) नो(cid:28) अपीनो(cid:28) ्ቝቖኋ(cid:9)चा(cid:9)रो एव(cid:17) टिकया(cid:28) गया(cid:28) अभी्ቖ व्यावह(cid:9)रो क(cid:3) लिLपी(cid:9)नो(cid:28) क(cid:28) उቌኔ(cid:28)श्या स(cid:28) ेሰनोग़ሤ(cid:17)ता आध(cid:9)रोटिहनो आቌኔ(cid:28)पी लग(cid:9)या(cid:28) हP आरो(cid:3)पी(cid:5) नो(cid:28) अपीनो(cid:28) उ्ቈरो क(cid:28) पी(cid:28)$ नो(cid:17)0 2 ेሰ& L(cid:9)या(cid:9) ቚኔलिता स(cid:17)लग्नो ब(cid:9)ता अ(cid:17)टिकता क2 ह7 पीरोन्ताB क(cid:3)ई भी(cid:5) L(cid:9)या(cid:9) ቚኔलिता स(cid:17)लग्नो नोह4 टिकया(cid:9) ह7 इसस(cid:28) याह भी(cid:5) स्पीቖኋ ह(cid:3)ता(cid:9) ह7 टिक उसक(cid:28) पी(cid:9)स बचा(cid:9)व ेሰ& क(cid:3)ई भी(cid:5) स(cid:9)ቌኚया/ቚኔेሰ(cid:9)ण नोह4(cid:17) ह7। $(cid:3) उसक(cid:28) कቕኍनो क2 पीBषिቖኋ करोता(cid:9)। आरो(cid:3)पी(cid:5) नो(cid:28) अपीनो(cid:28) उ्ቈरो ेሰ& लिल(cid:24)(cid:9) ह7 टिक ቦኍ(cid:5) स(cid:5) ०आरो० लिस(cid:17)ह ቌኔ(cid:28)्ቔ(cid:5)या ቚኔबन्धक चालिचा(ता भीቖኋ अलिधक(cid:9)रो4 रोह(cid:28) हP पीरोन्ताB आरो(cid:3)पी(cid:5) नो(cid:28) क(cid:3)ई ቚኔेሰ(cid:9)ण ቚኔस्ताBता नोह4(cid:17) टिकया(cid:9) $(cid:3) ्ቝቖኋता(cid:9) क(cid:3) लिस्ቍ करोता(cid:9) । षिबनो(cid:9) टिकस(cid:5) आध(cid:9)रो /ठा(cid:3)स ቚኔेሰ(cid:9)ण क(cid:28) टिकस(cid:5) पीरो ल(cid:9)(cid:17)Lनो, आरो(cid:3)पी लग(cid:9)नो(cid:9) स(cid:17)ሺኔ(cid:28)या अपीरो(cid:9)ध ह7। आरो(cid:3)पी(cid:5) पीरिरोचा(cid:9)लक नो(cid:28) आरो(cid:3)पी पी्ቔ एव(cid:17) क(cid:9)रोण बता(cid:9)ओं(cid:17) नो(cid:3)टि(cid:20)स क(cid:28) उ्ቈरो ेሰ& लिसफ( आध(cid:9)रोह4नो आरो(cid:3)पी ቚኔत्या(cid:9)रो(cid:3)पी क2 ह7। उसनो(cid:28) 21 षिबनो(cid:9) टि(cid:20)क(cid:20) या(cid:9)्ቔ(cid:5) लिनोरो4ቌኔणकता(cid:9)(ओं(cid:17) क(cid:28) स(cid:9)ቕኍ टिकया(cid:28) गया(cid:28) अभी्ቖ व्यावह(cid:9)रो व ेሰ(cid:9)ग( पी्ቔ LTनोनो(cid:28) व षिवभी(cid:9)ग ेሰ& नो $ेሰ(cid:9) करोनो(cid:28) क(cid:28) सम्बन्ध ेሰ& क(cid:3)ई ቚኔेሰ(cid:9)ण / स(cid:9)ቌኚया ቚኔस्ताBता नोह4(cid:17) टिकया(cid:9) ह7 औरो नो ह4 (cid:30)Cरो(cid:9)नो(cid:28) $(cid:9)(cid:17)चा अपीनो(cid:28) बचा(cid:9)व ेሰ& रिरोपी(cid:3)(cid:20)(कता(cid:9)(ओं(cid:17) आटि(cid:30) स(cid:28) क(cid:3)ई ቚኔलितापीरो4ቌኔण ह4 टिकया(cid:9) $ब टिक (cid:30)Cरो(cid:9)नो(cid:28) $(cid:9)(cid:17)चा लितालिቕኍयाV ेሰ& उपीखिस्ቕኍलिता रोह(cid:9) ह7 बखिWक आरो(cid:3)पी(cid:5) पीरिरोचा(cid:9)लक आरो(cid:3)पीV क(cid:3) गलता लिस्ቍ नो करो पी(cid:9)नो(cid:28) , सत्याता(cid:9) क(cid:9) स(cid:9)ेሰनो(cid:9) नो करो पी(cid:9)नो(cid:28) क2 खिस्ቕኍलिता ेሰ& हठाधलिेሰ(ता(cid:9) क(cid:3) अपीनो(cid:9)ता(cid:28) हBया(cid:28) $(cid:9)(cid:17)चा अलिधक(cid:9)रो4 क(cid:28) लिनो(cid:30)XशीV क2 अवह(cid:28)लनो(cid:9) करोता(cid:28) हBया(cid:28) $(cid:9)(cid:17)चा क(cid:9)या(व(cid:9)ह4 ेሰ& सहया(cid:3)ग नोह4(cid:17) टिकया(cid:9) गया(cid:9) , $(cid:9)(cid:17)चा अलिधक(cid:9)रो4 नो(cid:28) भी(cid:5) अपीनो(cid:28) $(cid:9)(cid:17)चा लिनोष्क!( ेሰ& खि$सक(cid:9) स्पीቖኋ उWल(cid:28)(cid:24) टिकया(cid:9) ह7 । इस(cid:5) ेሰ(cid:17)शी(cid:9) स(cid:28) आरो(cid:3)पी(cid:5) नो(cid:28) अपीनो(cid:28) पी्ቔ टि(cid:30)नो(cid:9)(cid:17)क 15.07.05 ቛኋ(cid:9)रो(cid:9) ቦኍ(cid:5) अ$या (cid:30)4खिቌኔता शी(cid:9)(cid:24)(cid:9) ेሰ(cid:17)्ቔ(cid:5) रो(cid:3)डव(cid:28)$ केሰ(चा(cid:9)रो4 स(cid:17)घ फ$लग(cid:17)$ टिडपी(cid:3) क(cid:3) अपीनो(cid:9) 6 WRIT – A No. - 29707 of 2008 ቚኔलितालिनोध नो(cid:9)लिेሰता करोनो(cid:28) स(cid:17)बन्ध(cid:5) ቚኔ(cid:9)ቕኍ(नो(cid:9) पी्ቔ $(cid:9)(cid:17)चा अलिधक(cid:9)रो4 क(cid:3) ቚኔ(cid:9)्቎ करो(cid:9)या(cid:9) ቕኍ(cid:9) खि$सेሰ& ቚኔलितालिनोलिध क2 सहेሰलिता आवश्याक ह(cid:3)ता(cid:5) ह7 पीरोन्ताB ቦኍ(cid:5) अ$या (cid:30)4खिቌኔता क(cid:28) षिबनो(cid:9) सहेሰलिता क(cid:28) पी्ቔ ቚኔस्ताBता टिकया(cid:9) गया(cid:9)। इस(cid:5) ቚኔक(cid:9)रो पीBनो\ आरो(cid:3)पी(cid:5) नो(cid:28) अपीनो(cid:28) पी्ቔ टि(cid:30)नो(cid:9)(cid:17)क

22.07.05 ቛኋ(cid:9)रो(cid:9) अन्या टिकस(cid:5) ቚኔलितालिनोलिध ल(cid:9)नो(cid:28) क2 ब(cid:9)ता कह4 गई खि$सेሰ& ቚኔलितालिनोलिध क(cid:9) नो(cid:9)ेሰ ताक उWल(cid:28)(cid:24) नोह4(cid:17) टिकया(cid:9) गया(cid:9)। इसस(cid:28) स्वता\ स्पीቖኋ ह(cid:3)ता(cid:9) ह7 टिक आरो(cid:3)पी(cid:5) क2 सत्याता(cid:9) क(cid:9) स(cid:9)ेሰनो(cid:9) नो करो सकनो(cid:28) करो सकनो(cid:28) क2 खिस्ቕኍलिता ेሰ& $(cid:9)(cid:17)चा क(cid:9)या(व(cid:9)ह4 क(cid:3) ब(cid:9)लिधता करोता(cid:28) हBया(cid:28) लखिम्बता रो(cid:24)नो(cid:9) चा(cid:9)हता(cid:9) ቕኍ(cid:9)। $(cid:3) ेሰ(cid:9)्ቔ क(cid:9)नो@नो पी(cid:28)शीबन्(cid:30)4 क2 क(cid:9)या(व(cid:9)ह4 ह7। आरो(cid:3)पी(cid:5) पीरिरोचा(cid:9)लक नो(cid:28) अपीनो(cid:28) पी्ቔ टि(cid:30)नो(cid:9)(cid:17)क

9.05.05 ेሰ& स्वता\ अ(cid:17)टिकता करो स्व(cid:5)क(cid:9)रो टिकया(cid:9) ह7 टिक उसक2 व(cid:9)हनो ेሰ& पी(cid:9)(cid:17)चा या(cid:9)्ቔ(cid:5) षिबनो(cid:9) टि(cid:20)क(cid:20) ቕኍ(cid:28) इसस(cid:28) स्वता\ लिस्ቍ ह7 टिक उसक(cid:28) ቛኋ(cid:9)रो(cid:9) टिकरो(cid:9)या(cid:28) क2 धनोरो(cid:9)लिशी ቚኔ(cid:9)्቎ करो या(cid:9)षि्ቔयाV क(cid:3) षिबनो(cid:9) टि(cid:20)क(cid:20) या(cid:9)्ቔ(cid:9) करो(cid:9) रोह(cid:9) ቕኍ(cid:9)। याटि(cid:30) बस क(cid:9) औचाक लिनोरो4ቌኔण नो टिकया(cid:9) गया(cid:9) ह(cid:3)ता(cid:9) ता(cid:3) आरो(cid:3)पी(cid:5) अपीनो(cid:28) उቌኔ(cid:28)श्या ेሰ& सफल ह(cid:3) $(cid:9)ता(cid:9) । ्ቝቖኋ(cid:9)चा(cid:9)रो पीक़ቨ(cid:28) $(cid:9)नो(cid:28) क2 खिस्ቕኍलिता $(cid:9)नो(cid:28) क2 खिस्ቕኍलिता ेሰ& लिनोरो4ቌኔण्कता(cid:9)(ओं(cid:17) स(cid:28) अभी्ቖ व्यावह(cid:9)रो टिकया(cid:9) $(cid:9)नो(cid:9) , ेሰ(cid:9)ग( पी्ቔ स(cid:17)0 0963900 क2 (cid:30)(cid:3)नोV ቚኔलिताया(cid:9)(cid:17) LTनोकरो टि(cid:20)प्पीण(cid:5) नो अ(cid:17)टिकता करोनो(cid:28) (cid:30)(cid:28)नो(cid:9) औरो ग(cid:9)याब करो (cid:30)(cid:28)नो(cid:28) पीरो आरो(cid:3)पी ቚኔत्या(cid:9)रो(cid:3)पी करो ्ቝቖኋ(cid:9)चा(cid:9)रो, क(cid:3) लिLपी(cid:9)नो(cid:28) क(cid:9) भीरोसक ቚኔया(cid:9)स टिकया(cid:9) गया(cid:9) ह7 स(cid:9)ቕኍ ह4 ेሰ(cid:9)्ቔ क(cid:9)नो@नो पी(cid:28)शीबन्(cid:30)4 क2 गई ह7। आरो(cid:3)पी(cid:5) पीरिरोचा(cid:9)लक ቛኋ(cid:9)रो(cid:9) आरो(cid:3)पीV पीरो गलिताशी(cid:5)ल क(cid:9)या(व(cid:9)ह4/$(cid:9)(cid:17)चा क(cid:9)या(व(cid:9)ह4 क(cid:3) ेሰ(cid:9)्ቔ स्ቕኍलिगता रो(cid:24)नो(cid:28) क(cid:28) लिलए लग(cid:9)ता(cid:9)रो ቚኔया(cid:9)स टिकया(cid:9) $(cid:9)ता(cid:9) रोह(cid:9) ह7 बचा(cid:9)व ेሰ& क(cid:3)ई ቚኔेሰ(cid:9)ण, स(cid:9)ቌኚया ቚኔस्ताBता करोनो(cid:28) क(cid:9) ቚኔया(cid:9)स नोह4(cid:17) टिकया(cid:9) गया(cid:9) ताቕኍ(cid:9) $(cid:9)(cid:17)चा क(cid:9)या(व(cid:9)ह4 क(cid:3) (cid:30)Bभी(cid:9)(वनो(cid:9)पी@ण( कह(cid:9) गया(cid:9)। पीरिरोचा(cid:9)लक नो(cid:28) क(cid:9)रोण बता(cid:9)ओं(cid:17) नो(cid:3)टि(cid:20)स क(cid:28) उ्ቈरो ेሰ& कह(cid:9) ह7 टिक ቦኍ(cid:5) षिवቦኍ(cid:9)ेሰ लिस(cid:17)ह या(cid:9)ता(cid:9)या(cid:9)ता अध(cid:5)ቌኔक फता(cid:28)हपीBरो टिडपीV ेሰ& ता7नो(cid:9)ता(cid:5) क(cid:28) सेሰया स(cid:28) ቚኔया(cid:9)\ धनो उग(cid:9)ह4 क(cid:9) ቚኔया(cid:9)स करोता(cid:28) ቕኍ(cid:28) ताቕኍ(cid:9) फ$- क(cid:28) स लिल(cid:24)नो(cid:28) क2 धेሰक2 (cid:30)(cid:28)ता(cid:28) रोहता(cid:28) ቕኍ(cid:28)। इस घ(cid:20)नो(cid:9) क(cid:28) पी@व( कभी(cid:5) भी(cid:5) आरो(cid:3)पी(cid:5) ቛኋ(cid:9)रो(cid:9) नो ता(cid:3) उच्चा अलिधक(cid:9)रिरोयाV क(cid:3) इसक2 लिशीक(cid:9)याता क2 गई औरो नो ह4 इस ब(cid:9)ता क2 टिकस(cid:5) ቕኍ(cid:9)नो(cid:28) 7 WRIT – A No. - 29707 of 2008 ेሰ& एफ०आई०आरो० ह4 (cid:30)$( करो(cid:9)ई गई ह7। अस्ताB याह आरो(cid:3)पी ेሰनोगढन्ता , कWपीनो(cid:9) पीरो आध(cid:9)रिरोता ह7 ेሰ(cid:9)्ቔ क(cid:9)नो@नो(cid:5) पी(cid:28)शीबन्(cid:30)4 ह(cid:28)ताB आरो(cid:3)पी लग(cid:9)या(cid:9) गया(cid:9) ह7। ቚኔकरोण पी्ቔ(cid:9)वल(cid:5) स(cid:28) उपीलब्ध सेሰस्ता ቚኔपी्ቔV क2 भील(cid:5) भी(cid:9)bलिता अध्यायानो करोनो(cid:28), आरो(cid:3)पी(cid:5) पीरिरोचा(cid:9)लक क(cid:28) स(cid:28)व(cid:9) इलिताह(cid:9)स क(cid:9) अध्यायानो करोनो(cid:28) क(cid:28) पीቐኋ(cid:9)ता ेሰ7 इस लिनोष्क!( पीरो पीहB (cid:17)चा(cid:9)ता(cid:9) ह@ (cid:17) टिक उपीरो(cid:3)्ሹ क(cid:28) आध(cid:9)रो पीरो अरो(cid:3)पी(cid:5) पीरिरोचा(cid:9)लक ቛኋ(cid:9)रो(cid:9) (cid:30)ण्ड क(cid:28) बचा(cid:9)व ेሰ& ቚኔस्ताBता लिलखि(cid:24)ता ቚኔलिताव(cid:28)(cid:30)नो पी@ण(ताया(cid:9) अस(cid:17)ता(cid:3)!$नोक पी(cid:9)या(cid:28) $(cid:9)नो(cid:28) क2 खिस्ቕኍलिता ेሰ& $(cid:9)(cid:17)चा(cid:3)पीरो(cid:9)न्ता ቚኔेሰ(cid:9)खिणता आरो(cid:3)पीV क(cid:28) ቚኔलिता आरो(cid:3)पी(cid:5) पीरिरोचा(cid:9)लक क(cid:3) उ्ቈरो(cid:30)(cid:9)या(cid:5) पी(cid:9)ता(cid:28) हBए (cid:30)ण्ड स्वरूपी क(cid:9)रोण बता(cid:9)ओं(cid:17) नो(cid:3)टि(cid:20)स ेሰ& ቚኔस्ता(cid:9)षिवता (cid:30)ण्ड क(cid:28) अनोBरूपी (cid:30)ण्डस्वरूपी ቦኍ(cid:5) बरो(cid:30)(cid:9)नो(cid:5) ल(cid:9)ल पीरिरोचा(cid:9)लक फ$लग(cid:17)$ टिडपी(cid:3) क(cid:3) लिनोलम्बनो क(cid:9)ल क(cid:9) अवशी(cid:28)! व(cid:28)तानो $ब्ता करोता(cid:28) हBए स(cid:28)व(cid:9) स(cid:28) पीeቕኍक टिकया(cid:9) $(cid:9)ता(cid:9) ह7 ।”

15. Petitioner thereafter filed an Appeal against the order dated 9.2.2007 before the Appellate Authority, however, the same was dismissed vide order dated

28.4.2007. A revision thereof was also dismissed vide order dated 23.5.2008.

16. In the present writ petition orders dated 17.1.2007

28.4.2007 and 23.5.2008 are impugned.

17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred an application made by the petitioner on the very next date of inspection i.e. 9.5.2005 that petitioner was not carrying any passenger without ticket, rather, Traffic Inspector with malafide intention has made the Inquiry Report since the petitioner has refused to pay bribe.

18. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has asked for certain documents, but same were not provided and this was the reason that he was 8 WRIT – A No. - 29707 of 2008 not able to place his case properly before the Inquiry Officer. However, he has filed a very detail reply before the Disciplinary Authority which was erroneously rejected and order of maximum punishment i.e. ‘Removal from Service’ was passed.

19. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment passed by Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar Agarwal Vs. General Manager-II & Appointing Authority, State Bank of India & Ors., (2015) 15 SCC 184 and on judgments of this Court in Jagmohan Vs. State of U.P. & 2 Ors, Neutral Citation No.2025:AHC:29196 and in Writ-C No.1610 of 2018, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Reg. Office Meerut Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P. Meerut & Anr.

20. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned orders and submitted that principles of natural justice were substantially followed. Petitioner on his own has failed to appear before the Inquiry Officer. Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of Traffic Inspector and has asked questions based on the reply submitted by petitioner also. Petitioner has failed to produce any evidence in respect of his repeated contention that the inspection report was factually incorrect.

21. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

22. From perusal of records, it is clear that principles of natural justice and due process provided for conducting 9 WRIT – A No. - 29707 of 2008 disciplinary proceeding was followed in the present case since a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner to which he has filed a short reply. The petitioner has produced a witness, however, thereafter on his own has opted not to appear before the Inquiry Officer despite notice, therefore, Inquiry Officer has recorded the statement of Traffic Inspector and has asked questions in terms of the objections made by the petitioner by way of a short reply.

23. The Inquiry Officer after considering the materials on record found all charges proved against the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority has considered a detail reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice and by a reasoned order, concur the finding returned by the Inquiry Officer and passed an order of maximum punishment of ‘Removal from Service’. Appeal and Revision thereof were also dismissed by reasoned orders.

24. In the aforesaid circumstances, there is no procedural error in the decision making process and in such circumstances there is a very limited scope of review in the disciplinary proceedings.

25. Now the Court proceeds to consider as to whether defence put by the petitioner was a plausible defence. In this regard, Court takes note of a judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Bhupinderpal Singh Gill Vs. State of Punjab & Ors, 2025 SCC OnLine SC

113. Relevant paragraphs thereof are reproduced hereinafter: “33. Certain generic principles governing interference with orders of punishment that are passed following inquiry proceedings have evolved over a period of time. Law is well 10 WRIT – A No. - 29707 of 2008 settled that an administrative order punishing a delinquent employee is not ordinarily subject to correction in judicial review because the disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. If there is some legal evidence on which the findings can be based, then adequacy or even reliability of that evidence is not a matter for canvassing before the high court in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, should on consideration of the materials on record, the court be satisfied that there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice, or that the inquiry proceedings have been conducted contrary to statutory regulations prescribing the mode of such inquiry, or that the ultimate decision of the disciplinary authority is vitiated by considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case, or that the conclusion of the disciplinary authority is ex facie arbitrary or capricious, so much so that no reasonable person could have arrived at such conclusion, or there is any other ground very similar to the above, the high court may in the exercise of its discretion interfere to set things right. After all, public servants to whom Article 311 of the Constitution apply do enjoy certain procedural safeguards, enforcement of which by the high court can legitimately be urged by such servants depending upon the extent of breach that is manifestly demonstrated.

34. It would further be of immense profit, at this stage, to consider a specific principle which is tailored to the particular situation and could clinch the issue. The Constitution Bench of this Court, speaking through Hon'ble P.B. Gajendragadkar, J., in Union of India v. H.C. Goel (1964) 4 SCR 718 laid down a specific test which could be applied if a contention were raised that the conclusion is based on no evidence. Relevant passages from the said decision evincing one of the two questions arising for decision and the answer thereto, read as follows: “1. Two short questions of law arise for our decision in the present appeal. The first question is ... ; and the other question is whether the High Court in dealing with a writ petition filed by a GovernmentOfficer who has been dismissed from Government service is entitledto hold that the conclusion reached by the Government in regard tohis misconduct if (sic, is) not supported by any evidence at all. Asour judgment will show, we are inclined to answer both thequestions in the affirmative. Thus, the appellant, the Union of India, succeeds on the first point, but fails on the second. ...

20. ... It still remains to be considered whether the respondent is not right when he contends that in the circumstances of this case,the conclusion of the Government is based on no evidence whatever. It is a conclusion which is perverse and, therefore, suffers from such an obvious and patent error on the face of the record that the High Court would be justified in quashing it. In 11 WRIT – A No. - 29707 of 2008 dealing with writ petitions filed by public servants who have been dismissed, or otherwise dealt with so as to attract Article 311(2), the High Court under Article 226 has jurisdiction to enquire whether the conclusion of the Government on which the impugned order of dismissal rests is not supported by any evidence at all. It is true that the order of dismissal which may be passed against a Government servant found guilty of misconduct, can be described as an administrative order; nevertheless, the proceedings held against such a public servant under the statutory rules to determine whether he is guilty of the charges framed against him are in the nature of quasi-judicial proceedings and there can be little doubt that a writ of certiorari, for instance, can be claimed by a public servant if he is able to satisfy the High Court that the ultimate conclusion of the Government in the said proceedings, which is the basis of his dismissal, is based on no evidence....

23. ... In exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 on such a plea, the High Court cannot consider the question about the sufficiency or adequacy of evidence in support of a particular conclusion. That is a matter which is within the competence of the authority which deals with the question; but the High Court can and must enquire whether there is any evidence at all in support of the impugned conclusion. In other words, if the whole of the evidence led in the enquiry is accepted as true, does the conclusion follow that the charge in question is proved against the respondent? This approach will avoid weighing the evidence. It will take the evidence as it stands and only examine whether on that evidence illegally (sic, legally) the impugned conclusion follows or not. ...

26. ... Though we fully appreciate the anxiety of the appellant to root out corruption from public service, we cannot ignore the fact that in carrying out the said purpose, mere suspicion should not be allowed to take the place of proof even in domestic enquiries. It may be that the technical rules which govern criminal trials in courts may not necessarily apply to disciplinary proceedings, but nevertheless, the principle that in punishing the guilty scrupulous care must be taken to see that the innocent are not punished, applies as much to regular criminal trials as to disciplinary enquires held under the statutory rules. ...” (emphasis supplied)

35. It also needs to be emphasised that although the traditional concept of natural justice comprises of the two rules that prohibit anyone from being condemned unheard and anyone from being a judge of his own cause, jurisprudence on natural justice principles have seen a distinct shift ever since the decision in Maneka Gandhi v. India (1978) 1 SCC 248 constitutionalised principles of natural justice, as held in Madhayamam 12 WRIT – A No. - 29707 of 2008 Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India (2023) 13 SCC 401. Drawing inspiration from such authorities, it would be apt to observe that in relation to disciplinary proceedings, subject to just exceptions, natural justice would envisage observance of procedural fairness before holding a public servant guilty of misconduct and imposing a punishment on him for such misconduct. While it is true that principles of natural justice supplement, and not supplant, the law, such principles have been declared by this Court to be a constituent feature of Article 14. Validity of any disciplinary action,whenever questioned, has to be tested on the touchstone of Articles 14, 16 and 21 as well as Article 311(2), wherever applicable. To test whether interference is warranted, this Court has laid down that thescrutiny ought to be confined to finding out whether the disciplinary proceedings have been conducted fairly; if not, an inference can be drawn that this has caused prejudice to the charged employee. Be that as it may, there can be no gainsaying that the consequences of violation of a fair procedure, which principles of natural justice embody, in a given situation has to be considered on a case-by-case basis bearing in mind that judicial review is not intended to be an appeal in disguise.”

26. The contents of the Inspection Report and the defence submitted by the petitioner are quite different. According to Traffic Inspector in the bus in all 75 persons were travelling, out of which 21 passengers were travelling without tickets, whereas according to the petitioner at that time only 59 persons were travelling out of which tickets were already issued to 54 persons and remaining 5 persons were police personnels and two associates, who were travelling without tickets.

27. In order to prove the case against the petitioner Traffic Inspector has appeared before the Inquiry Officer and has reiterated contents of the Inspection Report with specific averment that petitioner has snatched the margpatra and since petitioner despite notice has opted not to appear, therefore, Inquiry Officer has asked questions on basis of short reply submitted by the petitioner and Traffic Inspector has reiterated the same version made in the Inspection Report. 13 WRIT – A No. - 29707 of 2008

28. In order to substantiate his defence, petitioner ought to have produced some witnesses or substantive material however, he failed to do so, which goes adverse to his defence. The figure of passengers travelling in bus as put by the petitioner was not proved.

29. The explanation given in the written reply by the petitioner about allegations of bribe could not be accepted in absence of any material and a vague allegation without any supportive material could not be accepted, therefore, on facts of the present case, judgments placed by the counsel for petitioner are distinguishable and since charges against the petitioner are serious which amounts to major misconduct, therefore, in such circumstances, punishment of ‘Removal from Service’ is not shockingly disproportionate.

30. In aforesaid circumstances, principle of law as reiterated in Bhupinderpal Singh Gill (supra) if applied no case of interference under writ jurisdiction is made out, since it is not a case where principles of natural justice were not followed, it is not a case of ‘no evidence’ and no perversity was shown.

31. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.) September 23, 2025 SB SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad