# Jagdamba Prasad Pandey v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 1287
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-16
- **Case number:** Writ A No 12905 of 2010
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jagdamba-prasad-pandey-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54390
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

4 All. Jagdamba Prasad Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1287
139. Similarly, in the case of Bank of India and another v. Avinash D. Mandivikar and
others, (2005) 7 SCC 690, it was held that an employee who obtains appointment by producing
false documents cannot claim protection of natural justice to perpetuate such illegality.

140. The principle has been reiterated in Chairman and Managing Director, FCI and others
v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and others, (2017) 8 SCC 670 wherein it has been held that once fraud is
established, the question of affording further opportunity becomes irrelevant, as the appointment
itself is void.

141. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, this Court is of the considered opinion
that no detailed departmental inquiry or prior opportunity of hearing is mandatorily required in
cases where the appointment is founded upon forged or non-genuine documents, and the fraud
stands substantiated on the basis of objective material on record.

142. The writ Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, would not ordinarily interfere with such action unless it is demonstrated that the decision is
perverse, wholly arbitrary, or based on no evidence whatsoever. In the present case, no such
infirmity has been established.

143. Accordingly, the contention raised by the petitioner, premised upon alleged violation
of procedural safeguards, is devoid of merit and liable to be rejected.

144. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness, or perversity so as to warrant
interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

145. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed and is
hereby dismissed.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 1287
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ A No 12905 of 2010

Jagdamba Prasad Pandey ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
(1) Scope of writ jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of disciplinary authority in the matter arising out of
charge of serious misconduct of carrying passengers without ticket.
1288 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Headnotes
(A) Service law - Termination - Disciplinary proceeding - Charge leveled was that the petitioner,
while working as Conductor, did not issue tickets to 59 passengers in bus though he filled paybills - Defense that he was not able to distribute tickets though after making count of
passengers, he filled pay-bills and received the ticket money also, therefore, there was no loss of
Corporation, was taken - Further plea that no passengers has given any statement, was taken -
Permissibility - Disciplinary Authority observed that petitioner has sufficient time to distribute
tickets as bus was checked after about 12 kilometers from starting point - Scope of writ
jurisdiction felt into consideration: (E-1)
Held: This Court cannot sit as Appellate Court to consider whether evidence was sufficient or not except in a
case when findings are perverse which is not a case in hand. Carrying passengers without ticket is a serious
misconduct and in this regard, Court takes note of above referred judgments and since petitioner has failed to
provide any reasonable explanation that under which circumstances, without issue tickets to passengers, he
could fill pay-bills in advance, therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with impugned order
in limited writ jurisdiction. [Para 16]

Case Law Cited
MD, North-East Karnataka Road Transport Corpn. v. K. Murti, (2006) 12 SCC 570; Bhupinderpal Singh Gill vs.
State of Punjab and others, 2025 SCC Online SC 113 - referred to.

List of Keywords
Inspection, Carrying passenger without ticket, Inquiry, Charge sheet, Show Cause Notice, Disciplinary
proceeding, Reply, Major punishment, Termination, Ticket money, Pay-bill, Disproportionate, Reasonable
explanation, Perverse, Writ Jurisdiction.

Case Arising From
Termination order dated 15.02.2005 passed by Assistant Regional Manager and Order dated 03.02.2010
passed by appellate authority.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant: Diwakar Mishra, Raj Narayan Tiwari, Shyamdhar Pandey
Advs. for the Respondents: Ajit Kumar Singh (C.S.C.), Mritunjay Mohan Sahai

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.)

1. Heard Sri Shyamdhar Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri M.M. Sahai, learned
counsel for respondent-Road Corporation.

2. The petitioner was a Conductor with respondent-Corporation. On 23.06.2004 when he
was discharging duties as Conductor of Vehicle No. UP-42-T/1633 from Faizabad to Akbarpur, an
inspection was conducted wherein it was found that he has not issued tickets to 59 passengers in
bus though he has filled paybills.

3. In aforesaid circumstances, petitioner was served with a charge sheet and inquiry report
dated 19.09.2004 was submitted. Subsequently, a second show cause notice was issued by
Assistant Regional Manager, Akbarpur passed an order of punishment dated 15.02.2005 whereby
petitioner was terminated from service. Subsequently, petitioner has filed a representation before
Regional Manager, Faizabad and vide order dated 09.11.2006, punishment order was set aside and
matter was remitted back for fresh consideration.
4 All. Jagdamba Prasad Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1289
4. In aforesaid circumstances, inquiry was conducted afresh and vide inquiry report dated
04.03.2009, the charge was found proved in part. For reference, relevant part of order is quoted
below :-

 "िधोहस्ताक्ष र द्व ा रा िम्पू णर् प्र करण पत्रा वल का ि िवधवत िवलोकन ि कया गया।
ि नर क्ष णके िमय बि में कुल 59 यात्र यात्रा कर रहे थे ि जिक ि टकट वाइज मागर् पत्र पर िपरचालक
द्वा रा प्र ि िवि कर द गय थ ि जिे ि नर क्ष ण कतार् एवं आरोप द्व ा रा ि् व कार ि कया गया है।आरोप
के पेट में ददर् होने के कारण ि टकट पर कहां िे कहां तक िंि कत नह ं ि कया गया जिबिकटकट का यात्र
ििहत यात्रा रत याि त्र यों के पाि उपलब्ध था ियद आरोप क मनिा दू ि षतरहत तो उनको देय ि टकटों
का नि र वाइज िंकन मागर् पत्र पर नह ं करता। आरोप कादाि यत्व था ि क याि त्र यों को ि टकट
बनाकर उपलब्ध कराने के उपरांत मागर् पत्र पर प्र ि िवि करनेके बाद बि िंचाि लत कराता लेि कन ऐिा
न कर केवल याि त्र यों क िंख्या मागर् पत्र पर करकेि बना ि टकट बनाये वाहन िंचाि लत करा ि दया
गया ि जिके ि लए आरोप दोष प्र त त होता है।
 ितः उक्त ि ववेचना एवं प्र करण पत्रा वल के आधार पर मै इि ि नष्क षर् पर पहु चता हूँ ि क श्र
 जगदिा प्र िाद पाण्डे य िपरचालक (आरोप ) िकबरपुर ि डपो जो वतमातन में शाहगंज ि डपो मेंकायरत
है पर लगाया गया आरोप आंि शक रू प िे ि िद्ध पाया जाता है।

5. The Disciplinary Authority thereafter issued a show cause notice along with a
disagreement note, though admittedly, no specific reason was assigned therein and petitioner was
asked to submit his reply within 15 days. The petitioner submitted a reply and asked respondents to
provide reasons for disagreement. Accordingly, second notice was issued on 07.08.2009 was issued
wherein concerned respondent provided reasons for disagreement. Relevant part thereof is quoted
below :-

"2- आपके उक्त प्र ा थनात पत्र के क्र म में िवगत कराना है ि क ि रपोटर् कतार् क मृत्यु हो
जानेके कारण प्र करण के ि द्व त य जांच में उनक बयान नह ं ि लया गया है। आपने िपने आरोप पत्रके उत्त
र में ि नर क्ष ण ि् थ ल क दू र डेढ़़ ़़िे 02 ि कम ० बताया गया है, जिबक पूवर् में हु ई जांच मेंजांच
ििधकार , द्व ा रा प्र ि तपर क्ष ण के िमय ि रपोटकततार् िे पूछे गये प्रश् न के उत्त र में िकबरपुरिे
ि नर क्ष ण ि् थ ल क दू र 12 ि कम ० बताया गया है, ि जिमें ि वरोधाभाि है। प्र करण मेंििभलेखन य
आधार पर जांच आख्या तैयार क गय है। ितः आपको ििऩ़्त म रू प िे िूि चितकया जाता है, ि क कारण
बताओं नोि टि का उत्त र 03 ि दन के िऩ़्द र प्रे ि षत करें, िन्य था प्रकरण में एकपक्ष य कायवातह कर द
जायेग

6. Admittedly, petitioner has not submitted any reply within prescribed period and he
submitted a belated reply on 01.09.2009 whereas on same day, impugned order was passed,
whereby a major punishment of termination from service was passed. Relevant part of said order is
mentioned hereinafter :-

"मेरे द्व ा रा ि रपोटकततार् क ि रपोटर्, जाूँच आख्या प्र ि त पर क्ष ण के िमय आये तथ्ों का िम्य
किवलोकन ि कया गया, और पाया ि क आरोप द्व ा रा िपने आरोप पत्र के उत्त र में ि लखा है
ि कयाि त्र यों िे पूछ कर उनक िंख्या नुिार मागर् पत्र पर प्र ि िवि िकबरपुर िे बिखार कर द गय थ ।
1290 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
वह ि रपोटकततार् ने िपन ि रपोटर् में ि लखा है ि क वाहन का भौि तक ि नर क्ष ण ि कया जा रहाथा,
तभ आरोप द्व ा रा याि त्र यों को भड का ि दया गया। ि जििे यात्र हंगामा करने लगे। ि जिकेकारण
आरोप िे ि टकट तुरन्त नह ं ि लया जा िका, और ि थथ ि त को देखते हु ये आरोप केकथनानुिार
ि टकटो क प्र ि िवि भ मागर् पत्र पर आरोप िे ह करवान पड , और याि त्र यों केदवाब के कारण मागर्
पत्र के िऩ़ु िार उिक क् लो ि जग भ ि नर क्ष ण कतार् द्व ा रा करन पड ।आरोप द्व ा रा कारण
बताओ नोि टि के उत्त र के िाथ िामुदाि यक ि् वाि् थ केन्द्र ितरौि लयाआजमगढ़़ क दवा क पच र्
िंलग्न क है, जो ि दनांक 22.06.04 क है। िाथ ह जब आरोप के पेट में ददर् था तो ि दनांक 23.05.04 को
फैजाबाद िे बुदनपुर जाते िमय ि डपो पर तैनातउिपधकाि रयों /ििधकाि रयों को बताना चाि हये था,
परन्तु आरोप द्व ा रा ऐिा कुछ भ नह ं बतायागया। प्र करण क ि द्व त य जांच में आरोप ने ि नर क्ष ण ि् थ
ल क दू र डेढ़़ िे 02 ि क०म ० बतायाहै। जब ि क पूवर् में हु ई जांच ििधकार द्व ा रा प्र ि तपर क्ष ण के
दौरान ि रपोटर् कतार् िे पूछे गये। प्रश् नके उत्त र में िकबरपुर िे ि नर क्ष ण ि् थ ल क दू र 12
ि क०म ० बताया गया है। जैिा ि कपत्रा वल में ि रपोटकततार् द्व ा रा बताया गया है ि क ि नर क्ष ण ि् थ ल
िे िकबरपुर क दू र 12ि क०म ० है। इि ब च कुड क नामक पेपर ि् टा पेज है। जो िकबरपुर िे 08
ि क०म ० क दू र पर है। आरोप का उत्त र दाि यत्व था ि क बि में बैठे याि त्र यों को नगर ि मा के िन्द र
ह ि टकटबनाकर और मागर् पत्र पर प्र ि वि करके ह वाहन को आगे बढ़़ ़़ परन्तु उनके द्व ा रा
12ि क०म ० क दू र तक एक भ ि टकट नह ं बनाया गया। बि ि् टे शन िे एक पेपर ि् टा पेज पारकरके
12 ि क०म ० क दू र ि नर क्ष ण ि् थ ल िे ि टकट बनाने का कोई िऔचत् य नह ं है। जैिा ि कआरोप ने
यह भ ि् व कार ि कया है ि क ि नर क्ष ण ि् थ ल तक कोई भ ि टकट नह ं बनाया गयाथा। इि प्र कार
िपरचालक भ्रि ा चार में िंि लप्त हो करके ि वभाग य ि नयमों एवं ि नदेशों के ि वरूद्धहै। ि जिके
कारण आरोप दोष है। आरोप द्व ा रा ि द्व त य जाूँच में कारण बताओं नोि टि का उत्त रभ प्रि् तु त नह ं
ि कया है। आरोप द्व ा रा कारण बताओ नोि टि का उत्त र न देना ि् पि करता है ि ककारण बताओ
नोि टि में ि दया गया दण्ड उिे ि् व कार है। मेरे ििभमत में प्रि् ता ि वत दण्ड केिनुिार दण् डा देश
पाि रत ि कया जाना िउचत है।
ितः श्र जगदिा प्र िाद पाण् डे य, िपरचालक िकबरपुर ि डपों वतमातन शाहगंज ि डपो को
कारणबताओ नोि टि में प्रि् ता ि वत दण्ड को पाि रत करते हु ये ि नलि न काल का िवशेष वेतन
जब्तकरते हु ये िेवा िे प्र थक ि कया जाता है।

7. The petitioner thereafter approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition No. 58141/2009
which was disposed of vide order dated 10.11.2009 with liberty to file an appeal being alternative
remedy.

8. Accordingly, petitioner filed an appeal before Regional Manager, UPSRTC, Azamgarh
Region, Azamgarh which was dismissed vide order dated 03.02.2010 and relevant part of it is mentioned
below :-

 "प्र करण पत्रा वल प्र ाप् त होने पर मेरे द्व ा रा प्र करण िे िंबंि धत ि रपोटर् जार आरोप पत्र
आरोपपत्र के उत्त र जांच ििधकार क जांच आख्या जार कारण बताओं नोि टि, प्रत् या वेदन एवं प्र ाप् तआख्या
ििहत िम्पू णर् प्र करण पत्रा वल का गम्भ रता पूवकत गहन िध्य यन ि कया गया। औरपाया ि क चेि कग के
िमय ि जन ि टकटों क प्र ि िवि प्रत् या वेदन श्र पाण्डे य द्व ा रा मागर् पत्र पर क गय उनमें जो ि टकट
ि नर क्ष ण के द्व ा रा रोके गये, िभ खाल (ब्लैं क) थे। और ि नर क्ष ण ि् थ लतक उक्त ि टकटों के यात्र वास्त व
4 All. Jagdamba Prasad Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1291
में ि बना ि टकट ह थे और प्र करण िे िपने आपको बचाने हेतुयाि त्र यों को बहकाना भ इि तारतम् य मे ि् पि
िमझ में आता है। ितः मेरे िनुिार प्रत् या वेदनको ि दया गया दण् ड िउचत है।
 ितः श्र जगदिा प्र िाद पाण्डे य भूतपूवर् िपरचालक शाहगंज ि डपो द्व ा रा प्रे ि षत प्रत् या
वेदनबलह न पाये जाने के कारण ि नरस्त (ि रजेक्ट ) ि कया जाता है।"9. Aforesaid orders dated 01.09.2009
and 03.02.2010 are under challenge in this writ petition.

10. Learned counsel for petitioner has argued vehemently and referred orders passed by
respondents annexed in writ petition to the effect that on date of inspection, the petitioner was suffering
with stomach pain and inspection was conducted within two kilometers from starting point of bus,
therefore, he was not able to distribute tickets though after making count of passengers, he has filled paybills and has received the ticket money also, therefore, there was no loss of Corporation. Since author of
inspection report was meanwhile expired, therefore, report was not proved during subsequent inquiry.
None of passengers has given any statement and punishment was shockingly disproportionate.

11. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent-Corporation has supported impugned order and
submitted that it was a case where disciplinary authority has made a disagreement to inquiry report
submitted in second round of disciplinary proceedings and has made a specific reason in second notice,
however, petitioner has not submitted any reply within stipulated time, therefore, on basis of material
available, it was found that petitioner has committed misconduct that admittedly he was carrying 59
passengers without ticket and without any reasonable explanation with specific finding that inspection was
conducted after about 12 kilometers from starting point of bus and not after 2 kilometers as alleged by
petitioner. Therefore, there was no explanation for not providing tickets even after such a long journey.

12. I have considered above submissions and perused the records.

13. The Supreme Court in MD, North-East Karnataka Road Transport Corpn. v. K. Murti,
(2006) 12 SCC 570 has held that carrying passengers without ticket is a serious misconduct which could
invite major punishment of termination. Relevant paragraph of said judgment is quoted below :-

 "8. The learned counsel for the appellant, at the time of hearing, placed strong reliance on the two
decisions of this Court, one in Regional Manager, Rajasthan SRTC v. Ghanshyam Sharma [(2002) 10 SCC
330 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 714] which was also a case of bus conductor carrying passengers without issuing
tickets. This Court, in the above case, held that carrying the passengers without tickets amounts to dishonesty
or grave negligence and for such misconduct punishment of removal from service is justified. This Court
also further observed that the Labour Court was not justified in directing the reinstatement with
continuity of service but without back wages. This Court has also relied upon a judgment in
Karnataka SRTC v. B.S. Hullikatti [(2001) 2 SCC 574 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 469] . In the said judgment,
this Court has held that in such cases where the bus conductors carry passengers without ticket or
issue tickets at a rate less than the proper rate, the said acts would inter alia amount to either being a
case of dishonesty or of gross negligence and such conductors were not fit to be retained in service
because such inaction or action on the part of the conductors results in financial loss to the Road
Transport Corporation. This Court has also observed that in cases like the present, orders of dismissal
should not be set aside. The learned counsel for the appellant also cited Divisional Controller, N.E.K.R.T.C.
v. H. Amaresh [(2006) 6 SCC 187 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1290] . In this case, this Court was considering the
1292 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
case of misappropriation of a small amount of State Road Transport Corporation's fund by a conductor and
held it a grave act of misconduct, which resulted in financial loss to the Corporation. This Court also held that
punishment of dismissal from service awarded by the disciplinary authority did not call for any interference
by the Labour Court or the High Court and hence the order of reinstatement passed by the High Court was
set aside. This Court also in a catena of decisions held that the Tribunal should not sit in appeal over
the decision of any employer unless there exists a statutory provision in this behalf. This Court also
observed that the High Court gets jurisdiction to interfere with the punishment in the exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution only when it finds that the punishment imposed is
shockingly disproportionate to the charges proved."

14. In the first round of proceedings, a representation of petitioner was considered by the higher
authority and a fresh inquiry report was sought. Accordingly, a fresh inquiry report was submitted and charge
was found proved in part, however, Disciplinary Authority has made a disagreement on a factual aspect that
petitioner has sufficient time to distribute tickets as bus was checked after about 12 kilometers from starting
point, he filled pay-bills without issuing tickets.

15. The petitioner is not able to deny aforesaid either in disciplinary proceedings or before this
Court. The petitioner is also not able to deny that in normal circumstances, tickets are issued at first instance
and pay-bills are filled subsequently and not vice versa. During inquiry, due process was followed. The
petitioner was granted sufficient time to submit reply of notice of disagreement, however, he failed to do so.

16. The Appellate Authority has also rejected the appeal by a reasoned order. It is well settled that in
cases of disciplinary proceedings, this Court cannot sit as Appellate Court to consider whether evidence was
sufficient or not except in a case when findings are perverse which is not a case in hand. Carrying passengers
without ticket is a serious misconduct and in this regard, Court takes note of above referred judgments and
since petitioner has failed to provide any reasonable explanation that under which circumstances, without
issue tickets to passengers, he could fill pay-bills in advance, therefore, this Court does not find any reason to
interfere with impugned order in limited writ jurisdiction and for that Court takes note of a judgment of
Supreme Court in Bhupinderpal Singh Gill vs. State of Punjab and others, 2025 SCC Online SC 113.

17. Accordingly, writ petition has no force, hence, dismissed.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 1292
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 24.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

Writ A No 14466 of 2025

Akash Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents