# Ashok Kumar v. U.P. State Transport Corporation and others

- **Citation:** (2002) 3 ILRA 855
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-09-18
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27968 of 1992
- **Bench:** Rakesh Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ashok-kumar-v-u-p-state-transport-corporation-and-others-40020
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226-
Carrying passengers- without ticket after
full fledge enquiry- Petitioner was found
guilty- Industrial Tribunal also found the
termination order valid- held- warrants
no interference.

Held- Para 18

The findings of fact cannot be normally
interfered with by this Court in exercise
of powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India until and unless
there are strong reasons of mala fide and
perversity on the face of record. There is
no illegality or infirmity in the impugned
award and it is not a fit case for
interference
by
exercise
of
extra
ordinary powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
Case law discussed:
JT 1995 (8) SC-65
1996 (i) UPLBEC 2
1999 () UPLBEC 102, 103
2000 (i) ESC -82 ( Alld)
2000 (2) AWC 1475 (SC)

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Ashok Kumar V. U.P. State Transport Corporation and others 855
12 (3) indicates that the modified
definition of 'member of family' is for the
purposes of that sub section only i.e. for
the purposes of section 12 (3). There is no
logical reason to apply the modified
definition to section 20 (4) of the Act.

9. On the other hand learned counsel
for the respondent has relied upon a
decision of a learned single Judge of this
Court which directly covers the issue. The
said decision is Sri Jiya Uddin Vs. II ADJ
reported in 1982 ARC 200. In the said
decision it has been held that the
requirement of being dependent on the
tenant or normally residing with the
tenant is not necessary in Section 20 (4)
proviso.

In
the
circumstances
this
writ
petition is devoid of merit and is
accordingly dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.9.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27968 of 1992

Ashok Kumar

...Petitioner
Versus
U.P. State Transport Corporation and
others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.A. Gilani
Sri S.N. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Samir Sharma
Sri S.K. Sharma
S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226-
Carrying passengers- without ticket after
full fledge enquiry- Petitioner was found
guilty- Industrial Tribunal also found the
termination order valid- held- warrants
no interference.

Held- Para 18

The findings of fact cannot be normally
interfered with by this Court in exercise
of powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India until and unless
there are strong reasons of mala fide and
perversity on the face of record. There is
no illegality or infirmity in the impugned
award and it is not a fit case for
interference
by
exercise
of
extra
ordinary powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
Case law discussed:
JT 1995 (8) SC-65
1996 (i) UPLBEC 2
1999 () UPLBEC 102, 103
2000 (i) ESC -82 ( Alld)
2000 (2) AWC 1475 (SC)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and perused the records.

2. The petitioner has filed the
present writ petition challenging the
award dated 3.4.1992 passed by the
labour court, Annexure 3 and the order of
termination dated 20.4.1982 passed by
respondent no.2, Aannexure-1 to the writ
petition.

3. The petitioner was appointed as a
Bus Conductor on 10.6.1990 in U.P. State
Transport Corporation. He was issued
charge
sheets
dated
21.1.1981
and
24.10.1981
for
carrying
passengers
without ticket on four occasions in order
to embezzle the Corporation revenue. His
services were terminated by order dated
20.4.1982
passed
by
the
Assistant
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
856 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
Regional Manager, U.P. State Transport
Corporation, Muzaffarnagar, respondent
no. 2 after holding enquiry in the charges.

4. The petitioner raised an industrial
dispute against order of his termination,
which was referred to by the State
Government to the Labour court (1) UP
Meerut, where it was registered as I.D.
Case No. 89 of 1`98. The Labour Court
by award dated 3.4.92 has held that all the
charges
of
misconduct
against
the
petitioner stood proved and has given
finding of fact that the punishment
awarded to him cannot be said to be
disproportionate to the charges in the
circumstances of the case. It has further
been held that he is not entitled to
reinstatement in service with back wages
or other benefits.

5. The petitioner has assailed the
award on the ground that the findings
given by the labour court are against the
evidence ion record and are unwarranted
in the eyes of law as no charge is made
out against him. The further ground of
challenge is that the punishment awarded
against him is disproportionate and is not
tenable in the eyes of law. It is alleged
that when the labour court came to the
conclusion that the existing enquiry
against the petitioner is not in accordance
with law, the termination of his service
should have been treated from the date of
the impugned award i.e. 3.4.92 and not
from the date of termination of service by
respondent no. 2 vide order dated
20.4.1982

6. Counsel for the petitioner has
relied upon the following cases:

(1) B.C.Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India
and Ors., JT 1995 (8) SC 65
(2) Shri Chand Vs. Addl. Commissioner,
Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur and
others, (1996) 1 UP LBEC 2
(3) Ram Pratap vs. State of U.P. and
others, (1999) 3 UPLBEC 102
(4) Unnati Chaturvedi (Dr.) (Smt.) v.
Director of Education, Allahabad
and others, (1999) 3 UPLBEC 103
(5) P.C.
Srivastava
v.
Registrar,
Cooperative Societies and others,
2000 (1) ESC 82 (Alld.)
(6) U.P.
State
Road
Transport
Corporation and others v. Mahesh
Kumar Misra and others, 2000 (2)
AWC 1475 (SC).

7. In the peculiar facts and the
circumstances of the instant case, the
petitioner has been found to be carrying
the passengers without tickets earlier also
on four occasions. The labour court has
considered
all
the
facts
and
the
circumstances of the case and has come to
the conclusion that the punishment
awarded to the petitioner is neither
disproportionate to the charges nor severe.
It was not required any interference by
this court.

8. The counsel for the respondents
has contended that the petitioner was
found to be carrying passengers without
ticket so as to embezzle the Corporation
revenue on four occasions and committed
the offence of criminal misconduct, as
such he has rightly been dismissed from
service. It is further contended that the
punishment awarded to him cannot be
said to be disproportionate to the charges.
He has relied upon the following cases :

9. In B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of
India and Ors. JT 1995 (8) SC 65 (supra)
was a case of misconduct in which the
appellant was found in possession of
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Ashok Kumar V. U.P. State Transport Corporation and others 857
assets disproportionate to his known
source of income. It was held by the Apex
Court
that
the
High
Court
while
exercising the powers of judicial review,
cannot
normally
substitute
its
own
conclusion on penalty and impose some
other penalty unless the punishment
imposed by the disciplinary authority or
the
appellate
authority
shocks
the
conscience of the High Court/Tribunal.

10. In Shri Chand vs. Additional
Commissioner,
Gorakhpur
Division,
Gorakhpur
and
others,
(1996)
1
UPLBEC 2, this Court found that the
charge of embezzlement of stamp of
Rs.10/- was only disproportionate and
perverse and in these circumstances,
quashed the order of punishment on the
ground that no proper opportunity of
hearing was given to the petitioner and he
was directed to be reinstated in service on
deposit of Rs.10/-.

11. In Ram Pratap vs. State of U.P.
(1999) 3 UPLBEC (Sum.) 102, it was
held that the order of dismissal from
service
containing
no
reasons
for
conclusion was quashed as it was a nonspeaking order. In this case similar
charges have been leveled as were leveled
against the petitioner, were also leveled
against one Khushal Singh, Assistant
Engineer working with the petitioner. The
Administrative Tribunal conducted the
enquiry
and
recommended
for
his
dismissal from service, but he was
awarded only a minor punishment of
stoppage of three yearly increments as
was awarded in the case of Khushal
Singh. In the counter affidavit filed in that
case no reason whatsoever had been
disclosed as to why discriminatory
treatment was given to the petitioner and
as to why the petitioner was removed
from the service, when Khushal Singh
was awarded only minor punishment on
same charges and in same circumstances.

12. In P.C. Srivastava vs. Registrar,
Co operative Societies and others, 2000
(1) ESC 82 (All), it was held that the
petitioner was dismissed after suspension.
On enquiry it was found that the real
culprit was Rati Pal and not the petitioner,
though he was over all in charge and he
should have exercised proper control of
the affairs of the Cooperative Store. In
these circumstances, the punishment of
dismissal
was
held
to
be
highly
disproportionate
to
the
misconduct
alleged.

13. In U.P. State Road Transport
Corporation and others vs. Mahesh
Kumar Misra and others, 2000 (2) AWC
1475 (SC), it was held that the petitioner
was dismissed from service. In this case
the charge against the Conductor of the
bus as that he had issued tickets from
Zero Road to Manauri and charged only
Rs. 1.50 P. instead of Rs. 1.80, though it
was not on long distance bus but intercity
bus. It was a case of allowing the
passengers to travel without ticket. This
Court
directed
reinstatement
of
respondent with 25% back wages, as the
dispute whether the passengers boarded at
High Court or at Zero Road, could not be
proved, even though they being local
passengers, their statements was not
recorded on the point of place of their
boarding. Thus the above judgment cited
by the petitioner is also of no help to him.

14. In Shri Krishna Sharma vs. The
Assistant Regional Manager, (supra) it
has been held that if a passenger is found
travelling without ticket, the conductor of
the bus is responsible for it. The inference
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
858 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
drawn that the petitioner failed to perform
duties as provided in the rules, cannot be
said to be erroneous. The misconduct of
carrying passenger without ticket is very
serious and his service could be dispensed
with.

15. In Imtiaz Ahmad vs. U.P. State
Road Transport Corporation, Lucknow
(supra), it was held that the petitioner was
employed as Bus conductor. His duty was
not only to conduct the bus but also
realize fare and if a conductor is found
guilty of not realizing the fare and
permitting
the
passengers
to
travel
without tickets, it cannot be said to be a
minor
charge
for
awarding
lesser
punishment than the dismissal from
service.
This
Court
held
in
these
circumstances, there was no justification
to retain him in service and the impugned
order does not suffer from any error of
law.

16. In Shitla Prasad Srivastava Vs.
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation
(supra) a Division Bench of this Court
held that the finding of the Inquiry Officer
that the appellant did not issue any tickets
to
the
passengers
and
thereby
misappropriated the money cannot be
faulted with and the punishment of
termination of service cannot be said to be
disproportionate to the charges.

17. In a similar case in U.P.S.R.T.C.
and others vs. Har Narain Singh and
others, the Apex Court has held that
where
High
Court
reappraised
the
evidence led in the enquiry and quashed
the order passed by the Tribunal as also,
the order passed by the disciplinary
Authority
it
clearly
exceeded
its
jurisdiction in doing so because the High
Court was not sitting in appeal over the
findings
given
by
the
disciplinary
authority. The Apex Court set aside the
impugned order of the High Court and
restored the order of the Tribunal.

18. In the instant the findings of fact have
been given by the labour court, which
have upheld the punishment given by the
Corporation after enquiry. In the charges
of
serious
misconduct
for
carrying
passengers without ticket for which the
only appropriate punishment is dismissal
from service. In the past also the conduct
of the petitioner was not without blemish.
Corruption is now rampant in the society
and has to be rooted out by strict
enforcement of law. The punishment in
the aforesaid circumstances cannot be
said to be highly disproportionate so as to
shock the conscience of the Court. The
disciplinary authority as well as the labour
court has come to the conclusion that
there is no justification to retain him
service. The findings of fact cannot be
normally interfered with by this Court in
exercise of powers under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India until and unless
there are strong reasons of malafide and
perversity on the face of record. There is
no illegality or infirmity in the impugned
award and it is not a fit case for
interference by exercise of extra ordinary
powers
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution of India.

19. No other point has been raised
before this Court.

20. For these reasons, the writ
petition fails and dismissed. No order as
to costs.
---------
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Ajay Kumar Singh V. The Tehsildar Sahjanwan, Gorakhpur and others 859
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.9.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40592 of 2002

Ajay Kumar Singh

...Petitioner
Versus
The Tehsildar Sahjanwan, Gorakhpur and
others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.R. Dube

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226-
Recovery Proceeding arrears in respect
of contract- as arrears of land Revenue-
held- proper.

Held- Para 3

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the recovery cannot be made as arrears
of land revenue. He has relied on the
Division Bench decision of this Court in
Ram Bilas Tibriwal versus Chairman,
Municipal Board, Titri Bazar and others,
1998
(2)
AWC
1468.
We
have
distinguished the above decision in our
judgment in Writ Petition No. 37629 of
2002, Smt. Malka Begum Versus State of
UP decided on 24.9.2002. Hence we
cannot agree with the submission of the
learned counsel for the petitioner.
Case law discussed:
1998 (2) AWC 1468
W.P. No. 37629 of 02 Decided on 24.9.02

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. The petitioner has challenged the
recovery in respect of a contract granted
to him for realization of Park fee as well
as Tahhazari from Nagar Panchayat
Sahjanwan, district Gorakhpur.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner had applied against
an advertisement and had been granted
the contract for realization of Park fee as
well as Tahbazari from the area concerned
as mentioned in the advertisement.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that recovery cannot be made
as arrears of land revenue. He has relied
on the Division Bench decision of this
Court in Ram Bilas Tibriwal Versus
Chairman, Municipal Board, Titri Bazar
and others, 1998 (2) AWC 1468. We have
distinguished the above decision in our
judgment in Writ Petition No. 37629 of
2002, Smt. Malka Begum Versus State of
U.P. decided on 24.9.2002. Hence we
cannot agree with the submission of the
learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. As regard the petitioner's
allegation that he was restrained from
realizing park fee/tahbazari, he may make
a representation in this connection to the
District Magistrate, Gorakhpur who will
decide the same preferably within 6
weeks thereafter in accordance with law
after hearing the petitioner as well as the
respondent no. 3.

5. With the aforesaid direction, this
writ petition is disposed off.
---------