M.D. U.P.R.T.C. and Others v. Counsel for

Heard Sri Brajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for respondent.

2. The petitioner, a conductor in U.P.S.R.T.C., was found carrying passengers without ticket on an inspection on

01.04.2005. Accordingly, a report was prepared and a charge- sheet was issued to petitioner on 20.04.2005.

3. During disciplinary proceedings, author of inspection report and petitioner appeared and their statements were recorded and an opportunity of cross examination was also given. The petitioner has produced a defence witness, a passenger travelling on the date of occurrence in the bus who has supported the defence of petitioner that 15 to 20 passengers were entered into the bus as their vehicle was got some defect and when he was in process of issuing ticket, an inspection was conducted.

4. As such, there was not much opportunity with petitioner to issue tickets to all passengers who have entered into the bus. The inquiry report dated 30.10.2006 was submitted, wherein the charge of carrying 23 passengers without ticket and 7 passengers had tickets up to only Chandausi but travelling ahead was also found proved.

5. In the aforesaid circumstances, disciplinary authority issued a show-cause notice dated 06.11.2006 to which petitioner sought time by a communication dated 05.01.2007 that his son has unfortunately died.

6. It appears that the disciplinary proceedings does not provide any further time to submit reply to petitioner and proceeded with proceedings that petitioner has failed to submit any reply even after one month and, therefore, on basis of material and inquiry report and since petitioner was failed to submit any reply to disciplinary authority, the punishment of removal from service was passed by an order dated 17.01.2007. The appeal thereof was also dismissed by an order dated

28.05.2008. The aforesaid orders are impugned in present writ petition.

7. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that disciplinary authority has not considered that in given circumstances petitioner had no opportunity to issue ticket, as well as he was not granted sufficient time to submit his reply despite he has petitioner has sought time as his son has died. 2 of 5

8. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that petitioner has produced a defence witness and i.e. a passenger who has explained some revision that 15 to 20 passengers were entered into the bus and before he could issue tickets to passengers, the inspection was conducted. Learned counsel further submitted that Appellate Authority has not even taken note of the statement of the defence witness and mainly on a ground that petitioner failed to submit any reply to the show- cause notice, the inquiry report was accepted and maximum punishment was awarded, which was an erroneous approach. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that Appellate Authority has also not considered the grounds mentioned in the appeal.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent submitted that inquiry was conducted after hearing the petitioner and petitioner’s statement was also recorded and he has cross- examined author of the report. Petitioner has produced a defence witness, however, it was not found reliable and, therefore, on basis of inquiry report and since petitioner was failed to submit any reply before the disciplinary authority, by a reasoned order, maximum punishment of removal from service was passed.

10. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.

11. In the disciplinary proceedings, before the Inquiry Officer, petitioner has examined a defence witness (passenger travelling in the bus on day of occurrence) who has stated same defence taken by petitioner as referred above, however, the disciplinary authority has not even taken note of it. Even in a case where a 3 of 5 delinquent has failed to submit any reply to show-cause notice, still the disciplinary authority has to decide the case on basis of material inquiry report and nature of oral evidence, after applying independent mind, whereas in the present case, disciplinary authority has accepted the inquiry report mainly on a ground that petitioner was failed to submit any reply to the show-cause notice despite opportunity was granted.

12. The Court also takes note that there was a genuine reason with the petitioner since his son has died to seek additional time to file his reply to show-cause notice, however, same was also not taken note of.

13. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Court takes note of a judgment passed by Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh (Dead) Through LRs vs Delhi Transport Corporation, SLP (C) No.33473 of 2016 (decided on 20.08.2025) and its relevant paragraph being para 10 is extracted hereinafter :- “10. There is no dispute as regard the fact that the vehicle in which checking was conducted was traveling from Bareily to in between. The Pilibhit. There would therefore be stoppages evidence on record is that those who were found ticket less, had boarded from different points. Admittedly, 29 passengers were found with tickets. The defence of the appellant was that he was in the process of issuing tickets to those who boarded from different points. It is not the charge that the appellant was found with extra cash and that he was letting the passengers go without tickets after taking cash from them.”

14. In the aforesaid circumstances, Court is of the opinion that disciplinary authority ought to have passed a reasoned order by applying independent mind irrespective whether the petitioner was failed to submit his reply, therefore, in aforesaid circumstances, outcome of discussion is that impugned order passed by disciplinary authority does not 4 of 5 survive accordingly, it is set aside and consequently, the order passed by Appellate Authority is also set aside.

15. The Court also takes note that petitioner has crossed the age of superannuation as in the year 2008, he has declared his age to be about 57 years, still considering that writ petition was pending before this Court for last 17 years, therefore, matter is remitted to disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order, taking note of above referred observations.

16. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of. (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.) September 11, 2025 P. Pandey PUSHPENDRA PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 5 of 5

Heard Sri Brajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for respondent.

2. The petitioner, a conductor in U.P.S.R.T.C., was found carrying passengers without ticket on an inspection on

01.04.2005. Accordingly, a report was prepared and a charge- sheet was issued to petitioner on 20.04.2005.

3. During disciplinary proceedings, author of inspection report and petitioner appeared and their statements were recorded and an opportunity of cross examination was also given. The petitioner has produced a defence witness, a passenger travelling on the date of occurrence in the bus who has supported the defence of petitioner that 15 to 20 passengers were entered into the bus as their vehicle was got some defect and when he was in process of issuing ticket, an inspection was conducted.

4. As such, there was not much opportunity with petitioner to issue tickets to all passengers who have entered into the bus. The inquiry report dated 30.10.2006 was submitted, wherein the charge of carrying 23 passengers without ticket and 7 passengers had tickets up to only Chandausi but travelling ahead was also found proved.

5. In the aforesaid circumstances, disciplinary authority issued a show-cause notice dated 06.11.2006 to which petitioner sought time by a communication dated 05.01.2007 that his son has unfortunately died.

6. It appears that the disciplinary proceedings does not provide any further time to submit reply to petitioner and proceeded with proceedings that petitioner has failed to submit any reply even after one month and, therefore, on basis of material and inquiry report and since petitioner was failed to submit any reply to disciplinary authority, the punishment of removal from service was passed by an order dated 17.01.2007. The appeal thereof was also dismissed by an order dated

28.05.2008. The aforesaid orders are impugned in present writ petition.

7. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that disciplinary authority has not considered that in given circumstances petitioner had no opportunity to issue ticket, as well as he was not granted sufficient time to submit his reply despite he has petitioner has sought time as his son has died. 2 of 5

8. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that petitioner has produced a defence witness and i.e. a passenger who has explained some revision that 15 to 20 passengers were entered into the bus and before he could issue tickets to passengers, the inspection was conducted. Learned counsel further submitted that Appellate Authority has not even taken note of the statement of the defence witness and mainly on a ground that petitioner failed to submit any reply to the show- cause notice, the inquiry report was accepted and maximum punishment was awarded, which was an erroneous approach. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that Appellate Authority has also not considered the grounds mentioned in the appeal.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent submitted that inquiry was conducted after hearing the petitioner and petitioner’s statement was also recorded and he has cross- examined author of the report. Petitioner has produced a defence witness, however, it was not found reliable and, therefore, on basis of inquiry report and since petitioner was failed to submit any reply before the disciplinary authority, by a reasoned order, maximum punishment of removal from service was passed.

10. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.

11. In the disciplinary proceedings, before the Inquiry Officer, petitioner has examined a defence witness (passenger travelling in the bus on day of occurrence) who has stated same defence taken by petitioner as referred above, however, the disciplinary authority has not even taken note of it. Even in a case where a 3 of 5 delinquent has failed to submit any reply to show-cause notice, still the disciplinary authority has to decide the case on basis of material inquiry report and nature of oral evidence, after applying independent mind, whereas in the present case, disciplinary authority has accepted the inquiry report mainly on a ground that petitioner was failed to submit any reply to the show-cause notice despite opportunity was granted.

12. The Court also takes note that there was a genuine reason with the petitioner since his son has died to seek additional time to file his reply to show-cause notice, however, same was also not taken note of.

13. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Court takes note of a judgment passed by Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh (Dead) Through LRs vs Delhi Transport Corporation, SLP (C) No.33473 of 2016 (decided on 20.08.2025) and its relevant paragraph being para 10 is extracted hereinafter :- “10. There is no dispute as regard the fact that the vehicle in which checking was conducted was traveling from Bareily to in between. The Pilibhit. There would therefore be stoppages evidence on record is that those who were found ticket less, had boarded from different points. Admittedly, 29 passengers were found with tickets. The defence of the appellant was that he was in the process of issuing tickets to those who boarded from different points. It is not the charge that the appellant was found with extra cash and that he was letting the passengers go without tickets after taking cash from them.”

14. In the aforesaid circumstances, Court is of the opinion that disciplinary authority ought to have passed a reasoned order by applying independent mind irrespective whether the petitioner was failed to submit his reply, therefore, in aforesaid circumstances, outcome of discussion is that impugned order passed by disciplinary authority does not 4 of 5 survive accordingly, it is set aside and consequently, the order passed by Appellate Authority is also set aside.

15. The Court also takes note that petitioner has crossed the age of superannuation as in the year 2008, he has declared his age to be about 57 years, still considering that writ petition was pending before this Court for last 17 years, therefore, matter is remitted to disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order, taking note of above referred observations.

16. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of. (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.) September 11, 2025 P. Pandey PUSHPENDRA PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 5 of 5