# Lokman Singh v. Dy. G.M., Western Zone, U.P.S.R.T.C., Meerut and others

- **Citation:** (2007) 1 ILRA 51
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-09-20
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.22514of 1997
- **Bench:** Tarun Agarwala
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/lokman-singh-v-dy-g-m-western-zone-u-p-s-r-t-c-meerut-and-others-40882
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Art.
226Alternative Remedy-termination order
challenged-pending for long period of 10
years-after
exchange
of
counterRejoinder
affidavit-held
alternative
remedy No bar.

Held: Para 4

No doubt, the petitioner has·a remedy of
raising
a
dispute
under
the
U.P.
Industrial Disputes·Act. However, since
the petition was entertained in the year
1997
and
counter
and
rejoinder
affidavits have been exchanged, it would
not be proper for the Court to relegate
the petitioner to an alternative remedy
under the Industrial Disputes Act at this
stage, and that too, after a period of
almost 10 years. Consequently, the
preliminary
objection
made
by
the
learned counsel for the respondents is
rejected.

(B) Constitution of India, Art. 226Dismissal-No
finding
recoverded
by
disciplinary authority-about the charges
found established-No show cause notice
given-about dis agreement with the
finding recorded by the enquiry officerdismissal order-held not sustainable.

Held: Para 11 & 12

A perusal of the show cause notice
indicates that no reasons had been given
by
the
disciplinary
authority
while
disagreeing with thefindings of the
enquiry officer. The show cause notice
only quotes the charges levelled against
the petitioner which, by itself, did not
amount to a disagreement with the
findings given by the enquiry officer, nor
would it amount to a disclosure of the
reasons of the disciplinary authority.

Further, the, order of dismissal does not
indicate that the disciplinary authority
had found that the charges against the
petitioner stood proved. Consequently, in
the absence of any findings that the
charges
stood
proved
against
the
petitioner, the Court is of the opinion
that the order of dismissal against the
sole charge that was found proved by
the enquiry officer, by itself, cou1d not
be
a
ground
for
dismissal
of
the
petitioner.
2005 (7) SCC-597
1999 (83) FLR-534

## Text

1 All] Lokman Singh V. Dy. G.M., Western Zone, U.P.S.R.T.C., Meerut and others
51
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.09.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.22514of 1997

Lokman Singh

...Petitloner
Versus.
Deputy General Manager, Western Zone,
U.P.8.R.T.C. Meerut & others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Brijesh Sahai
Sri Satyanshu Ojha
Sri R.K. Ojha
Sri V.P. Singh
Smt. Krishna Singh
Sri Suman Kumar Yadav
Sri Akhilesh Misra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Sameer Sharma
Sri Sheshshadri Dwivedi
S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Art.
226Alternative Remedy-termination order
challenged-pending for long period of 10
years-after
exchange
of
counterRejoinder
affidavit-held
alternative
remedy No bar.

Held: Para 4

No doubt, the petitioner has·a remedy of
raising
a
dispute
under
the
U.P.
Industrial Disputes·Act. However, since
the petition was entertained in the year
1997
and
counter
and
rejoinder
affidavits have been exchanged, it would
not be proper for the Court to relegate
the petitioner to an alternative remedy
under the Industrial Disputes Act at this
stage, and that too, after a period of
almost 10 years. Consequently, the
preliminary
objection
made
by
the
learned counsel for the respondents is
rejected.

(B) Constitution of India, Art. 226Dismissal-No
finding
recoverded
by
disciplinary authority-about the charges
found established-No show cause notice
given-about dis agreement with the
finding recorded by the enquiry officerdismissal order-held not sustainable.

Held: Para 11 & 12

A perusal of the show cause notice
indicates that no reasons had been given
by
the
disciplinary
authority
while
disagreeing with thefindings of the
enquiry officer. The show cause notice
only quotes the charges levelled against
the petitioner which, by itself, did not
amount to a disagreement with the
findings given by the enquiry officer, nor
would it amount to a disclosure of the
reasons of the disciplinary authority.

Further, the, order of dismissal does not
indicate that the disciplinary authority
had found that the charges against the
petitioner stood proved. Consequently, in
the absence of any findings that the
charges
stood
proved
against
the
petitioner, the Court is of the opinion
that the order of dismissal against the
sole charge that was found proved by
the enquiry officer, by itself, cou1d not
be
a
ground
for
dismissal
of
the
petitioner.
2005 (7) SCC-597
1999 (83) FLR-534

(Delivered by Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.)

1. A checking squad of the U.P.
State Roadways Transport Corporation
stopped Bus No. UGE 507 on 18.12.1993
and upon checking, found, that out of 95
passengers, 48 passengers were travelling
without, tickets. On the basis of the
checking
report, the
petitioner was
suspended on 14.12.1993 and a charge
sheet dated 11.1.1994 was issued. The
52 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
charges against the petitioner was that 47
persons were travelling without tickets
and that the petitioner had manhandled
the checking staff and had also incited the
passengers, who in turn, misbehaved with
the checking staff and that the petitioner
indulged in indiscipline and violated the
Rules and Regulations of the Corporation.
The petitioner denied the allegations and
submitted that he was in, the process of
issuing the tickets when the bus was
stopped by the checking staff and, at that
stage, he had already issued several
tickets. He further submitted that he did
not misbehave with the checking staff nor
had incited the passengers and, in fact,
was instrumental in assuaging the tempers
of the passengers. The disciplinary
authority found that the reply of the
petitioner was not satisfactory, and
decided to hold an oral enquiry and
appointed an enquiry officer to conduct an
enquiry. The enquiry officer conducted
the enquiry and submitted a report and
found that the petitioner had not done his
duty in accordance with the Rules and
Regulations and therefore found him
guilty of this charge. The enquiry officer
found that the petitioner was issuing the
tickes at the time when the bus was
stopped by·the checking squad and that
there
was
some
misunderstanding
between him,the passengers and the
checking
staff.
The
enqmryofficer
consequently exonerated the petitioner
from
the
remaining
charges.
The
disciplinary authority disagreed with the
enquiry report and issued a show cause
notice dated 12.8.1994 to the petitioner to
show cause why his services should not
be dismissed. The petitioner submitted a
detailed reply. The disciplinary authority
after considering the matter, passed an
order· of dismissal dated 26.9.94. The
petitioner filed a departmental appeal
which was dismissed. Consequently, the
writ petition praying for the quashing of
the impugned orders.

2. Heard Sri Satyanshu Ojha, the
learned counsel holding the brief of Sri
R.K. Ojha, the learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri Sheshshadri Dwivedi,
the learned counsel holding the brief of
Sri Sameer Sharma, the learned counsel
for the respondents.
3. A preliminary objection was
raised .by the learned counsel for the
respondents, namely, that the petitioner
had a remedy of filing a reference under,
the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act for
adjudicating upon the legality and validity
of the order of the dismissal, and
therefore, submitted that the writ petition
should be dismissed on the ground of
alternative remedy.

4. No doubt, the petitioner has·a
remedy of raising a dispute under the U.P.
Industrial Disputes·Act. However, since
the petition was entertained in the year
1997 and counter and rejoinder affidavits
have been exchanged, it would not be
proper for the Court to relegate the
petitioner to an alternative remedy under
the Industrial Disputes Act at this stage,
and that too, after a period of almost 10
years. Consequently, the preliminary
objection made by the learned counsel for
the respondents is rejected.

5. The learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner
was exonerated·of the charges levelled
against· him by· the enquiry officer except
for one charge, which by itself, was not
that grievous, warranting an order of
dismissal.
Further,
the
disciplinary
authority, while disagreeing with the
enquiry report did not specify any reason
1 All] Lokman Singh V. Dy. G.M., Western Zone, U.P.S.R.T.C., Meerut and others
53
for disagreeing with the enquiry report,
nor such reasons were communicated by
the disciplinary authority while issuing
the show cause notice to the petitioner.
Consequently, the show cause notice
issued by the disciplinary authority was
exfacie illegal. The learned counsel for
the petitioner further submitted that even
in the order of dismissal, no reason had
been given by the disciplinary authority
for disagreeing with the enquiry report
nor the disciplinary authority found that
the petitioner was guilty of the charges
levelled against him. Consequently, in the
absence of any finding that the petitioner
was guilty of the charges, the order of the
disciplinary
authority
dismissing
the
petitioner
from
the
services·of
the
respondents was wholly illegal and was
liable to be set aside.

6. On the other hand, the learned
counsel for the respondents submitted that
the disciplinary authority had full power
to disagree with the findings recorded by
the enquiry officer and that he had
recorded
the
reasons
for
such
disagreement while issuing the show
cause notice. The learned counsel further
submitted
that
assuming
that
the
disciplinary authority did not give cogent
reasons in the show cause notice, the
reasons so given were only tentative in
nature which, in any case, was supplied
by the disciplinary authority in the order
of dismjssal. The learned counsel for the
respondents, therefore submitted, that
there was no error in the order of the
dismissal and that the same was liable to
be confirmed and that the Court should
not interfere in the decision of the
authority or substitute its decision with
the decision of the authority.

7. In support of his submission, the
leraned counsel placed reliance upon the
decision of the. Supreme Court in V.
Ramana vs. A.P.SRTC and others,
2005 (7) SCC 338, wherein the Supreme
Court held:

"11. The common thread running through
in all these decisions is that the court
should
not
interfere
with
the
administrator's decision unless it was
illogical or suffers from procedural
impropriety or was shocking to the
conscience of the court, in·the sense that it
was in defiance of logic or moral
standards. In view of what has been stated
in Wednesbury case the court would not
go into the correctness of the choice made
by the administrator open to him and the
court should not substitute its decision for
that of the administrator. The scope of
judicial
·review
is
limited
to
the
deficiency in decision making process and
not the decision.

12. To put it differently unless the
punishment imposed·by the disciplinary
authority or the Appellate Authority
shocks
the
conscience
of
the
court/Tribunal, there is no scope for
interference. Further to shorten litigations
it may, in exceptional and rare cases,
impose
appropriate
punishment
by
recording cogent reasons in support
thereof.·In a normal course if the
punishment
imposed
is
shockingly
disproportionate it would be appropriate
to direct the disciplinary authority or the
Appellate Authority to reconsider the
penalty imposed."

8. In the opinion of the Court, the
aforesaid principle, as enunciated by the
Supreme Court is not applicable in the
present case, inasmuch as, the decision of
54 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
the disciplinary authority is vitiated on
account of the fact that the order of
dismissal is disproportionate to the charge
found proved against the petitioner and
also on account of thefact that the
disciplinary authority while disagreeing
with the fmdings recorded by the enquiry
officer had neither given any reasons nor
had found that the charges levelled
against the petitioner stood proved.

9. In National Fertilizers Ltd. and
others Vs. P.K. Khanna, 2005 (7) SCC
597,·the Supreme Court held that it was
necessary for the disciplinary authority to
record its reasons for such disagreement
as well as give its own findings on such
charges, if it disagreed with the findings
of the enquiry officer.

10. In Yoginath D. Bagde vs. State
of Maharasntra and another, 1999 (83)
FLR 534, the Supreme Court held that
when the disciplinary authority disagreed
with the fmdings of the enquiry officer, he
was required to record his ownfmdings
that the charges were established and that
the delinquent officer was liable to be
punished. The Supreme Court held-

"it is open to the Disciplinary
Authority either to agree with the findings
recorded by the Inquiring Authority or
disagree with those findings. If it does not
agree with the findings of the Inquiring
Authority, it may record its own fmdings.
Where the Inquiring Authority has found
the delinquent officer guilty of the
charges framed against him and the
Disciplinary Authority agrees with those
findings, there would arise no difficulty.
So also, if the Inquiring Authority has
held
the
charges
proved,
but
the
Disciplinary Authority disagrees and
records a finding that the charges were
not established, there would arise no
difficulty. Difficulties havearisen in all
those cases in which the Inquiring
Authority has recorded a positive finding
that the charges were not established and
the delinquent officer was recommended
to be exonerated, but the Disciplinary
Authority disagreed with, those findings
and recorded its own findings that the
charges
were
established
and
the
delinquent officer was liable to, be
punished."

11. The learned counsel for the
respondents
submitted
that
the
disciplinary authority while disagreeing
with the findings of the enquiry officer
tentatively recorded its reasonings in the
show cause notice and after giving full
opportunity
to
the
petitioner,
the
disciplinary authority, after considering
the reply of the petitioner, recorded its
reasons for disagreeing with the findings
of the Enquiry Officer and thereafter,
passed the order of dismissal. The
submission of the learned counsel for the
respondents is bereft of merit. A perusal
of the show cause notice indicates that no
reasons had been given by the disciplinary
authority
while
disagreeing
with
thefindings of the enquiry officer. The
show cause notice only quotes the charges
levelled against the petitioner which, by
itself, did not amount to a disagreement
with the findings given by the enquiry
officer, nor would it amount to a
disclosure
of
the
reasons
of
the
disciplinary authority.

12. Further, the, order of dismissal
does not indicate that the disciplinary
authority had found that the charges
against the petitioner stood proved.
Consequently, in the absence of any
findings that the charges stood proved
1 All] Sunil Kumar Giri V. Union of India and others
55
against the petitioner, the Court is of the
opinion that the order of dismissal against
the sole charge that was found proved by
the enquiry officer, by itself, cou1d not be
a ground for dismissal of the petitioner.

13. For the reasons stated aforesaid,
the order of termination as well as the
appellate order cannot be sustained and
are quashed. The writ petition is allowed.
The respondents are directed to reinstate
the petitioner within one month from the
date of the production of a certified copy
of
this
order
before
the
authority
concerned. Since, no relief for back wages
has been claimed, this Court is therefore
not inclined to grant any relief of back
wages. Even otherwise, in the opinion of
the Court, since the petitioner had not
worked during the interim period, no
wages can be granted on the basis of the
principle of 'No work no Pay'.

14. Since, only one charge levelled
against the petitioner had been proved,
consequently, the petitioner would not be
entitled to receive the balance pay during
the suspension period other than the
subsistence allowance. The period of
suspension from the date of the dismissal
till the date of reinstatement would
however be counted towards his length of
service. In the circumstances of the case,
parties will bear their own cost.

Petition Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.08.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10844 of 2004

Sunil Kumar Giri

...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.P. Giri

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri A.K. Rai
Sri B.N. Singh (Sr. S.C.)

Central
Civil
Services
(Temporary
Service)
Rules
1965-Rule-5
(a)-a
termination
during
training
period
passed on the basis of assessment of
performance-the material assisting the
authorities come to this conclusion-the
petitioner found misbehaving with lady
constable
under
intoxication-
heldtermination simplicitor and not punitivewarrants no interference by writ court.

Held: Para 18

In the present case, however, merely for
the reason that a show-cause notice was
issued to the petitioner or a preliminary
enquiry was conducted, I am not inclined
to hold that the order of termination,
impugned in the writ petition is punitive
in nature, since, the aforesaid material is
only to aid and assist the authorities to
form an opinion as to whether the
petitioner should be continued in service
or not. They possess power to terminate
him simplicitor and have exercised the
same under the Rules. Therefore, in my
view, it cannot be said that the order
impugned is stigmatic or founded on
alleged
misconduct
and,
therefore,
vitiated in law.
Case law discussed: