High Court · 2025

of which is annexure 6 to the writ petition, and thereafter issued a chargesheet dated 22.10.2020, a copy of which is annexure 7 to the writ petition. An inquiry report was drawn up on

11.01.2021, a copy of which is annexure 8 to the writ petition, wherein the charge of carrying without ticket passengers were proved against the petitioner.

4. On the basis of the same, the petitioner was removed from service vide the order dated 08.10.2021, a copy of which is annexure 3 to the writ petition. The appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 07.04.2022, a copy of which is annexure 2 to the writ petition. The revision filed by the petitioner was also rejected vide order dated 20.12.2022, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition and hence the instant writ petition.

5. The sheet anchor of argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is the circular dated 06.11.2013 issued by the Corporation, a copy of which is annexure 11 to the writ petition which categorically provides that in case an employee is found carrying passengers without ticket then as far as possible the statement of such passengers should be recorded and in case the same is not possible the name and address of the passengers should be taken. In case the same is also not possible then the reasons as to why it has not been found possible to take the statements of the said passengers should be recorded in the way bill (demand letter) and that in the detailed report this fact should also be indicated.

6. The contention is that as per the question that had been put by the inquiry officer to the officer who conducted inspection as to why this fact had not been indicated in the demand letter the reply was that on account of chaos that had been created by the petitioner the passengers became agitated and it took some time to pacify the passengers and it is only thereafter that the conductor give the BT Book and the incident was recorded Copy of the said question and answer is annexure CA-1 to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Corporation.

7. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the circular dated 06.11.2013 had been issued which requires recording the statements of alleged without ticket passengers or in the alternative their names and addressees or in the alternative as to why it has not been found possible to take the statements of the said without ticket passengers which are to be recorded in the demand letter and admittedly as per the statement given by the inspecting officer the said statement was not recorded in the demand letter as such the inquiry proceedings which have proceeded on the premise that the petitioner was carrying without ticket passengers gets vitiated in the eyes of law. In the absence of any entry in the demand letter in terms of circular dated 06.11.2013 the argument is that the driver of the vehicle should have been examined to prove the veracity of the charges as have been levelled against the petitioner i.e. of carrying without ticket passengers but even the driver of the vehicle was not produced during the course of inquiry.

8. In this regard reliance has been placed on the judgement of this Court dated 24.04.2018 passed in the case of Lallo Prasad Sonkar vs Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and others in Writ A No 31493 of 2016. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the aforesaid judgement has attained finality.

9. It is also contended that neither the aforesaid aspect of the matter was considered by the inquiry officer and statement to that effect having been put to the inspecting officer during the course of the inquiry proceedings was considered nor was appreciated by either the disciplinary authority, appellate authority or the revisional authority while passing the order impugned, consequently the order impugned merits to be set aside.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Corporation has justified the order impugned by contending that from the statement of the inspecting officer it clearly emerges that the reason as to why the statement was not recorded in the demand letter as per the circular dated 06.11.2013 has been spelt out. It is further contended that once in the inspection the petitioner was found carrying without ticket passengers thus there was an intention on the part of the petitioner to embezzle the money of the said passengers after taking money from them for issuing tickets.

11. In this view of the matter the inquiry officer has correctly concluded that the petitioner is liable for the charges as levelled against him and the disciplinary authority has correctly removed the petitioner from service which order has been upheld by both the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority.

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

13. From perusal of record it emerges that an inspection was conducted on 15.10.2020 on a bus in which the petitioner was working as conductor. In the said inspection 11 passengers were allegedly found to be travelling without ticket. The Corporation has issued a circular dated 06.11.2013 to deal with the said situation i.e. where a conductor is caught carrying without ticket passengers. The said circular categorically provides that in case an employee is found carrying without ticket passengers then as far as possible, the statements of such passengers should be recorded and in case the same is not possible, the names and addresses of the passengers should be taken and in case the same is also not possible then the reasons as to why it has not been found possible to take statements of said passengers should be recorded in the way bill (demand letter) and in the detailed report this fact should also be indicated.

14. Admittedly, the circular dated 06.11.2013 was not followed by the respondents corporation as clearly emerges from a perusal of the statement of the inspecting officer, who stated that the reasons as to why it was not found possible to take the statements of the passengers or to record the names and addresses of the passengers was not adopted which fact should have clearly been indicated in the way bill (demand letter). The mere fact that an alleged chaos had been created by the passengers which prevented the investigating officer from taking statements of the without ticket passengers or the names and addresses should clearly have been recorded in the way bill (demand letter) as per the circular dated 06.11.2013 but the same was not adopted for reasons best known to the inspecting officer which thus raises a suspicion on the inspection conducted by the inspecting officer.

15. A relevant aspect of the matter is that even the driver of the said vehicle was not called during the course of inquiry in as much as there is no mention of the driver of the vehicle being called or his statement being taken during the course of the inquiry as clearly emerges from perusal of the inquiry report dated 11.01.2021.

16. This aspect of the matter has been considered by a coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Lallo Prasad Sonkar (supra) wherein this Court after examining the circular dated 12.03.1996 is which verbatim the circular dated

06.11.2013 has held as under: "The learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to Clause- 1(c), 6 (c) and (f) of the Circular dated 12.03.2016, which translated from Vernacular are as follows, 1-(c). Because in this department the report of "without ticket" is more as compared to report under other heads, therefore, it should be specially taken care that the statements of passengers found without ticket should definitely be recorded, if it is not possible then the names and addresses of such passengers should be noted and if both the aforesaid things are not possible, then while making endorsement in the way bill of without ticket a note should be compulsorily be recorded as to why the statements etc., of the passengers could not be taken. Accordingly, care should be taken about the above requirements in the detailed reports. 6-(c). While, passing the final order, only that incident should be taken into consideration to which the disciplinary proceeding is related. 6-(f). As far as possible, the disciplinary authority shall consider the service record and service book of the delinquent employee, while passing orders. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that without complying with the aforesaid clauses of the own circular dated 12.03.1996 of the Corporation, the respondent no.5, got the enquiry conducted against the petitioner and also punished him. There was allegation of carrying 10 ticket less passengers in the Corporation Bus, but in the entire enquiry neither the statement of any passenger recorded by the flying squad nor name and address of any passenger nor any endorsement on the way bill was proved by the prosecution. No reason was disclosed, why the aforesaid requirements of the circular were not complied. He has further argued that the driver of the vehicle was a competent witness who could have proved whether the passengers who were found without ticket had just boarded the bus and the petitioner was in the process of issuing tickets, when the inspection was conducted by the state flying squad or not. The driver was neither examined nor the petitioner was granted opportunity to cross examine him and therefore, the truth could not come out in the enquiry." ..................................... "From the above reply to the contents of paragraph no.33 of the writ petition, it is clear that the appellate and revisional orders have been passed on the basis of extraneous and false considerations. The respondents have tried to justify their action even on the basis of false and incorrect findings which are not supported by any document on record. In view of the above discussions, the punishment order passed by the disciplinary authority, is in violation of the Circular dated 12.03.1996 of the Corporation. The respondent no.5 withheld the best witness, driver of the vehicle, from the enquiry proceedings who could have proved the correct facts." ..................................... "Therefore, the punishment order deserves to be quashed. The appellate and revisional orders being based on extraneous considerations and false findings of fact can not be sustained and are also hereby quashed. Since the necessary material to prove the charges, in the form of statements of the passengers found without tickets, non-recording of their names and addresses and non endorsement on the way bill about the fact that the passengers refused to give their statements, names and addresses are not in possession of the Disciplinary Authority, therefore, he cannot be directed to conduct enquiry against the petitioner afresh." (emphasised by Court)

17. From perusal of the judgement of this Court in the case of Lallo Prasad Sonkar (supra) it clearly emerges that this Court has considered the circular dated 12.03.1996 which is verbatim the circular dated 06.11.2013 pertaining to the statements of without ticket passengers to be recorded failing which the names and addresses to be noted failing which a endorsement put in the way bill as to why statement of the passengers could not be taken and has held that a punishment order in violation of the circular would be bad and has also held that the respondents having failed to comply with the aforesaid circular, the punishment passed by the disciplinary authority would be in violation of the aforesaid circular and further the best witness of the incident namely the driver of the vehicle was withheld, who could have proved correct facts.

18. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation is unable to controvert or dispute the aforesaid judgement of this Court in the case of Lallo Prasad Sonkar (supra).

19. In the instant case also, as already indicated above, the inspecting authority failed to take the statement of the alleged without ticket passengers or the names and addresses and failed to record the reasons as to why he failed to do so in the way bill as admitted before the inquiry officer. The driver of the bus was also not called for witness by the respondents. Thus it is apparent that the inquiry proceedings held against the petitioner are patently vitiated on these grounds alone.

20. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The orders impugned dated 20.12.2022, 07.04.2022 and 08.10.2021, copies of which are annexures 1, 2 and 3 respectively are quashed.

21. Consequences to follow.

22. It would be open for the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. Order Date :- 6.2.2025 J. K. Dinkar JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

of which is annexure 6 to the writ petition, and thereafter issued a chargesheet dated 22.10.2020, a copy of which is annexure 7 to the writ petition. An inquiry report was drawn up on

11.01.2021, a copy of which is annexure 8 to the writ petition, wherein the charge of carrying without ticket passengers were proved against the petitioner.

4. On the basis of the same, the petitioner was removed from service vide the order dated 08.10.2021, a copy of which is annexure 3 to the writ petition. The appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 07.04.2022, a copy of which is annexure 2 to the writ petition. The revision filed by the petitioner was also rejected vide order dated 20.12.2022, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition and hence the instant writ petition.

5. The sheet anchor of argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is the circular dated 06.11.2013 issued by the Corporation, a copy of which is annexure 11 to the writ petition which categorically provides that in case an employee is found carrying passengers without ticket then as far as possible the statement of such passengers should be recorded and in case the same is not possible the name and address of the passengers should be taken. In case the same is also not possible then the reasons as to why it has not been found possible to take the statements of the said passengers should be recorded in the way bill (demand letter) and that in the detailed report this fact should also be indicated.

6. The contention is that as per the question that had been put by the inquiry officer to the officer who conducted inspection as to why this fact had not been indicated in the demand letter the reply was that on account of chaos that had been created by the petitioner the passengers became agitated and it took some time to pacify the passengers and it is only thereafter that the conductor give the BT Book and the incident was recorded Copy of the said question and answer is annexure CA-1 to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Corporation.

7. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the circular dated 06.11.2013 had been issued which requires recording the statements of alleged without ticket passengers or in the alternative their names and addressees or in the alternative as to why it has not been found possible to take the statements of the said without ticket passengers which are to be recorded in the demand letter and admittedly as per the statement given by the inspecting officer the said statement was not recorded in the demand letter as such the inquiry proceedings which have proceeded on the premise that the petitioner was carrying without ticket passengers gets vitiated in the eyes of law. In the absence of any entry in the demand letter in terms of circular dated 06.11.2013 the argument is that the driver of the vehicle should have been examined to prove the veracity of the charges as have been levelled against the petitioner i.e. of carrying without ticket passengers but even the driver of the vehicle was not produced during the course of inquiry.

8. In this regard reliance has been placed on the judgement of this Court dated 24.04.2018 passed in the case of Lallo Prasad Sonkar vs Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and others in Writ A No 31493 of 2016. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the aforesaid judgement has attained finality.

9. It is also contended that neither the aforesaid aspect of the matter was considered by the inquiry officer and statement to that effect having been put to the inspecting officer during the course of the inquiry proceedings was considered nor was appreciated by either the disciplinary authority, appellate authority or the revisional authority while passing the order impugned, consequently the order impugned merits to be set aside.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Corporation has justified the order impugned by contending that from the statement of the inspecting officer it clearly emerges that the reason as to why the statement was not recorded in the demand letter as per the circular dated 06.11.2013 has been spelt out. It is further contended that once in the inspection the petitioner was found carrying without ticket passengers thus there was an intention on the part of the petitioner to embezzle the money of the said passengers after taking money from them for issuing tickets.

11. In this view of the matter the inquiry officer has correctly concluded that the petitioner is liable for the charges as levelled against him and the disciplinary authority has correctly removed the petitioner from service which order has been upheld by both the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority.

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

13. From perusal of record it emerges that an inspection was conducted on 15.10.2020 on a bus in which the petitioner was working as conductor. In the said inspection 11 passengers were allegedly found to be travelling without ticket. The Corporation has issued a circular dated 06.11.2013 to deal with the said situation i.e. where a conductor is caught carrying without ticket passengers. The said circular categorically provides that in case an employee is found carrying without ticket passengers then as far as possible, the statements of such passengers should be recorded and in case the same is not possible, the names and addresses of the passengers should be taken and in case the same is also not possible then the reasons as to why it has not been found possible to take statements of said passengers should be recorded in the way bill (demand letter) and in the detailed report this fact should also be indicated.

14. Admittedly, the circular dated 06.11.2013 was not followed by the respondents corporation as clearly emerges from a perusal of the statement of the inspecting officer, who stated that the reasons as to why it was not found possible to take the statements of the passengers or to record the names and addresses of the passengers was not adopted which fact should have clearly been indicated in the way bill (demand letter). The mere fact that an alleged chaos had been created by the passengers which prevented the investigating officer from taking statements of the without ticket passengers or the names and addresses should clearly have been recorded in the way bill (demand letter) as per the circular dated 06.11.2013 but the same was not adopted for reasons best known to the inspecting officer which thus raises a suspicion on the inspection conducted by the inspecting officer.

15. A relevant aspect of the matter is that even the driver of the said vehicle was not called during the course of inquiry in as much as there is no mention of the driver of the vehicle being called or his statement being taken during the course of the inquiry as clearly emerges from perusal of the inquiry report dated 11.01.2021.

16. This aspect of the matter has been considered by a coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Lallo Prasad Sonkar (supra) wherein this Court after examining the circular dated 12.03.1996 is which verbatim the circular dated

06.11.2013 has held as under: "The learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to Clause- 1(c), 6 (c) and (f) of the Circular dated 12.03.2016, which translated from Vernacular are as follows, 1-(c). Because in this department the report of "without ticket" is more as compared to report under other heads, therefore, it should be specially taken care that the statements of passengers found without ticket should definitely be recorded, if it is not possible then the names and addresses of such passengers should be noted and if both the aforesaid things are not possible, then while making endorsement in the way bill of without ticket a note should be compulsorily be recorded as to why the statements etc., of the passengers could not be taken. Accordingly, care should be taken about the above requirements in the detailed reports. 6-(c). While, passing the final order, only that incident should be taken into consideration to which the disciplinary proceeding is related. 6-(f). As far as possible, the disciplinary authority shall consider the service record and service book of the delinquent employee, while passing orders. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that without complying with the aforesaid clauses of the own circular dated 12.03.1996 of the Corporation, the respondent no.5, got the enquiry conducted against the petitioner and also punished him. There was allegation of carrying 10 ticket less passengers in the Corporation Bus, but in the entire enquiry neither the statement of any passenger recorded by the flying squad nor name and address of any passenger nor any endorsement on the way bill was proved by the prosecution. No reason was disclosed, why the aforesaid requirements of the circular were not complied. He has further argued that the driver of the vehicle was a competent witness who could have proved whether the passengers who were found without ticket had just boarded the bus and the petitioner was in the process of issuing tickets, when the inspection was conducted by the state flying squad or not. The driver was neither examined nor the petitioner was granted opportunity to cross examine him and therefore, the truth could not come out in the enquiry." ..................................... "From the above reply to the contents of paragraph no.33 of the writ petition, it is clear that the appellate and revisional orders have been passed on the basis of extraneous and false considerations. The respondents have tried to justify their action even on the basis of false and incorrect findings which are not supported by any document on record. In view of the above discussions, the punishment order passed by the disciplinary authority, is in violation of the Circular dated 12.03.1996 of the Corporation. The respondent no.5 withheld the best witness, driver of the vehicle, from the enquiry proceedings who could have proved the correct facts." ..................................... "Therefore, the punishment order deserves to be quashed. The appellate and revisional orders being based on extraneous considerations and false findings of fact can not be sustained and are also hereby quashed. Since the necessary material to prove the charges, in the form of statements of the passengers found without tickets, non-recording of their names and addresses and non endorsement on the way bill about the fact that the passengers refused to give their statements, names and addresses are not in possession of the Disciplinary Authority, therefore, he cannot be directed to conduct enquiry against the petitioner afresh." (emphasised by Court)

17. From perusal of the judgement of this Court in the case of Lallo Prasad Sonkar (supra) it clearly emerges that this Court has considered the circular dated 12.03.1996 which is verbatim the circular dated 06.11.2013 pertaining to the statements of without ticket passengers to be recorded failing which the names and addresses to be noted failing which a endorsement put in the way bill as to why statement of the passengers could not be taken and has held that a punishment order in violation of the circular would be bad and has also held that the respondents having failed to comply with the aforesaid circular, the punishment passed by the disciplinary authority would be in violation of the aforesaid circular and further the best witness of the incident namely the driver of the vehicle was withheld, who could have proved correct facts.

18. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation is unable to controvert or dispute the aforesaid judgement of this Court in the case of Lallo Prasad Sonkar (supra).

19. In the instant case also, as already indicated above, the inspecting authority failed to take the statement of the alleged without ticket passengers or the names and addresses and failed to record the reasons as to why he failed to do so in the way bill as admitted before the inquiry officer. The driver of the bus was also not called for witness by the respondents. Thus it is apparent that the inquiry proceedings held against the petitioner are patently vitiated on these grounds alone.

20. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The orders impugned dated 20.12.2022, 07.04.2022 and 08.10.2021, copies of which are annexures 1, 2 and 3 respectively are quashed.

21. Consequences to follow.

22. It would be open for the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. Order Date :- 6.2.2025 J. K. Dinkar JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench