Vishnu Dutt Sharma U.P. State Road Transport Nigam And Others v. Counsel for

Dhar Dubey, Sarveshwar Lal Srivastava, U.S. Singh Visen HON’BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

1. Heard Sri Udai Chandani, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Dharmendra Dhar Dubey, learned counsel for respondent.

2. The petitioner, a conductor with respondent U.P. State Road Transport Nigam was suspended vide order dated

17.10.2012 that on 14.10.2012, on inspection it was found that he was carrying 14 passengers without tickets.

3. Accordingly, a charge-sheet dated 26.10.2012 was issued, making the said allegation on basis of the inspection report. The petitioner submitted his reply that 14 passengers were seated in the bus just 100 meter before the place where inspection was conducted, therefore, it was not possible within the short time to issue tickets to them. The passengers have told the same, however, it was not recorded in the inspection report. During the disciplinary proceedings, petitioner has appeared and stated the same defence before the Inquiry Officer. In reply to a question to author of the report on the distance between Iglaas to Hathras, he stated that it was about 7 k.m.

4. During the disciplinary proceedings, petitioner has examined defence witnesses i.e. alleged passengers who were found without ticket and they have stated the same version as mentioned by the petitioner.

5. In the aforesaid circumstances, inquiry report was submitted to disciplinary authority that charge was found proved. Accordingly, Disciplinary Authority issued a show-cause notice dated 06.02.2014 and proposed the maximum punishment of ‘Removal From Service’.

6. The Disciplinary Authority thereafter passed an order dated 22.07.2014 that an explanation submitted by petitioner was not satisfactory and confirmed the proposed punishment of ‘Removal From Service’. Thereafter petitioner filed a detailed appeal on 10.08.2014, however, the same was dismissed by an order dated November 6, 2015.

7. Subsequently, petitioner filed a detailed Revision Petition before the Managing Director, however, the same was rejected by an order dated 11.10.2019. The aforesaid all three orders i.e. 11.10.2019, 06.11.2015 and 22.07.2014 are challenged before this Court. 2 of 5

8. Learned counsel for petitioner referred the grounds mentioned in writ petition that once the petitioner has produced defence witnesses and no reason was assigned either in the inquiry report or order passed by Disciplinary Authority that such evidence was admissible or false and that the reason assigned for not issuing tickets to 14 passengers that they were entered in the bus few meters before the inspection was conducted and, therefore, it was not possible to issue them tickets within short period as well as at the time of inspection, passengers have informed the same to the inspecting team was a plausible defence was also not taken note of.

9. Learned counsel further submitted that in the aforesaid circumstances, charges cannot be considered to be proved so much as that maximum punishment of ‘Removal From Service’ could be awarded.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent has supported the impugned order that in disciplinary proceedings, there was no irregularity in the decision making process, therefore, under the writ jurisdiction, the Court may not consider whether on basis of evidence, charges could or could not be proved as well as the punishment awarded was not disproportionate.

11. I have considered the above submissions and perused the record. Within the limited jurisdiction of causing interference in disciplinary proceedings, the Court finds that this is a case where petitioner has come with a consistence defence that the time between passengers entered into the bus and inspection conducted by Flying Squad was very short and it was not possible to issue tickets to said 14 passengers, who were found 3 of 5 travelling without tickets as well as that it was also consistent defence that passengers have told the members of Flying Squad about the same reason as well as that during the proceedings, petitioner has produced defence witnesses i.e. two passengers and they have also stated the same version. Therefore, it was a plausible defence, which has skipped from consideration during disciplinary proceedings.

12. The Court takes note of a recent judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh (D) Through LRs vs Delhi Transport Corporation, SLP (C) No.33473 of 2016 decided on 20.08.2025, wherein there is similar circumstances, defence put by the conductor was found to be a plausible defence and order to terminate was set aside. Relevant part of it being paragraph 10 is mentioned 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.”

13. Therefore, the Court is of the opinion that findings returned by the Inquiry Officer as upheld by the Appellate Authority, Revisional Authority could be interfered and the Court is further opinion that since a very detailed Appeal was filed before the Disciplinary Authority, therefore, it would be appropriate if the matter be remitted to Appellate Authority to decide it fresh, taking note of referred defence. Accordingly, 4 of 5 order passed by Appellate Authority dated 06.11.2015 and Revisional Authority dated 11.10.2019 are set aside and matter is remitted to Appellate Authority to decide afresh within a period of six months, after taking note of above referred observations.

14. Accordingly, Writ Petition is disposed of. (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.) September 09, 2025 P. Pandey PUSHPENDRA PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 5 of 5

Dhar Dubey, Sarveshwar Lal Srivastava, U.S. Singh Visen HON’BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

1. Heard Sri Udai Chandani, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Dharmendra Dhar Dubey, learned counsel for respondent.

2. The petitioner, a conductor with respondent U.P. State Road Transport Nigam was suspended vide order dated

17.10.2012 that on 14.10.2012, on inspection it was found that he was carrying 14 passengers without tickets.

3. Accordingly, a charge-sheet dated 26.10.2012 was issued, making the said allegation on basis of the inspection report. The petitioner submitted his reply that 14 passengers were seated in the bus just 100 meter before the place where inspection was conducted, therefore, it was not possible within the short time to issue tickets to them. The passengers have told the same, however, it was not recorded in the inspection report. During the disciplinary proceedings, petitioner has appeared and stated the same defence before the Inquiry Officer. In reply to a question to author of the report on the distance between Iglaas to Hathras, he stated that it was about 7 k.m.

4. During the disciplinary proceedings, petitioner has examined defence witnesses i.e. alleged passengers who were found without ticket and they have stated the same version as mentioned by the petitioner.

5. In the aforesaid circumstances, inquiry report was submitted to disciplinary authority that charge was found proved. Accordingly, Disciplinary Authority issued a show-cause notice dated 06.02.2014 and proposed the maximum punishment of ‘Removal From Service’.

6. The Disciplinary Authority thereafter passed an order dated 22.07.2014 that an explanation submitted by petitioner was not satisfactory and confirmed the proposed punishment of ‘Removal From Service’. Thereafter petitioner filed a detailed appeal on 10.08.2014, however, the same was dismissed by an order dated November 6, 2015.

7. Subsequently, petitioner filed a detailed Revision Petition before the Managing Director, however, the same was rejected by an order dated 11.10.2019. The aforesaid all three orders i.e. 11.10.2019, 06.11.2015 and 22.07.2014 are challenged before this Court. 2 of 5

8. Learned counsel for petitioner referred the grounds mentioned in writ petition that once the petitioner has produced defence witnesses and no reason was assigned either in the inquiry report or order passed by Disciplinary Authority that such evidence was admissible or false and that the reason assigned for not issuing tickets to 14 passengers that they were entered in the bus few meters before the inspection was conducted and, therefore, it was not possible to issue them tickets within short period as well as at the time of inspection, passengers have informed the same to the inspecting team was a plausible defence was also not taken note of.

9. Learned counsel further submitted that in the aforesaid circumstances, charges cannot be considered to be proved so much as that maximum punishment of ‘Removal From Service’ could be awarded.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent has supported the impugned order that in disciplinary proceedings, there was no irregularity in the decision making process, therefore, under the writ jurisdiction, the Court may not consider whether on basis of evidence, charges could or could not be proved as well as the punishment awarded was not disproportionate.

11. I have considered the above submissions and perused the record. Within the limited jurisdiction of causing interference in disciplinary proceedings, the Court finds that this is a case where petitioner has come with a consistence defence that the time between passengers entered into the bus and inspection conducted by Flying Squad was very short and it was not possible to issue tickets to said 14 passengers, who were found 3 of 5 travelling without tickets as well as that it was also consistent defence that passengers have told the members of Flying Squad about the same reason as well as that during the proceedings, petitioner has produced defence witnesses i.e. two passengers and they have also stated the same version. Therefore, it was a plausible defence, which has skipped from consideration during disciplinary proceedings.

12. The Court takes note of a recent judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh (D) Through LRs vs Delhi Transport Corporation, SLP (C) No.33473 of 2016 decided on 20.08.2025, wherein there is similar circumstances, defence put by the conductor was found to be a plausible defence and order to terminate was set aside. Relevant part of it being paragraph 10 is mentioned 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.”

13. Therefore, the Court is of the opinion that findings returned by the Inquiry Officer as upheld by the Appellate Authority, Revisional Authority could be interfered and the Court is further opinion that since a very detailed Appeal was filed before the Disciplinary Authority, therefore, it would be appropriate if the matter be remitted to Appellate Authority to decide it fresh, taking note of referred defence. Accordingly, 4 of 5 order passed by Appellate Authority dated 06.11.2015 and Revisional Authority dated 11.10.2019 are set aside and matter is remitted to Appellate Authority to decide afresh within a period of six months, after taking note of above referred observations.

14. Accordingly, Writ Petition is disposed of. (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.) September 09, 2025 P. Pandey PUSHPENDRA PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 5 of 5