# Manbodh Lal Srivastava v. The U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 4 ILRA 128
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-04-29
- **Bench:** Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/manbodh-lal-srivastava-v-the-u-p-state-road-transport-corporation-ors-43555
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

128 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 29.04.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. DEVENDRA KUMAR ARORA, J.

Writ Petition / Service Single No.- 2907 Of 2005

Manbodh Lal Srivastava ...Petitioner
Versus
The U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & ors. ...Opposite Parties

In the present petition petitioner is challenging the order of dismissal dated 23.9.2003, appellate order dated
18.11.2003 and revisional order dated 31.1.2005.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted against the petitioner
in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice. The appeal of the petitioner preferred against the
punishment has been rejected in a mechanical way without application of mind.

On 22.04.2003, the petitioner was found to be carrying 64 passengers without ticket out of total 76
passengers during the checking by Assistant Transport Inspector, Jaunpur while carrying Bus No. UP65E 1731
on Varanasi-Kerakat via Sindhaura route. The Assistant Regional Manager was also present during the
checking. These passengers were travelling from Kutchehry to Sindhpur. The Assistant Transport Inspector
had prepared a combined ticket No. 2421561 and collected Rs. 1140/- from the passengers. The petitioner
had also prepared short distance tickets for 05 passengers.

Court observed 64 without ticket passengers, a single group ticket bearing number 2421561 amounting to Rs.
1140/- including penalty had been prepared which establishes that the stand of the petitioner is an
afterthought and as such, petitioner cannot be absolved of the charges levelled against him. There is no
illegality and infirmity in the impugned order of punishment.

The writ petition is dismissed.

List of Cases Cited

1. State of Uttaranchal and others vs. Kharak Singh 2009 (1) ALJ
257
2. Regional Manager, U.P.SRTC, Etawah and others Vs. Hoti Lal and another : (2003) 3 SCC 605

3. V. Ramana Vs. A.P. SRTC and others : (2005) 7 SCC 338

4. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Dehradun Vs. Suresh Pal : (2006) 8 SCC 108

5. A.P.SRTC Vs. Raghuda Siv Sankar Prasad : (2007) 1 SCC 222

6. U.P.SRTC Vs. Ram Kishan Arora : (2007) 4 SCC 627

7. Uttaranchal Transport Corporation Vs. Sanjay Kumar Nautiyal : (2008) 12 SCC 131
4 All. Manbodh Lal Srivastava Vs The U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors.
129
8. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Suresh Chand Sharma :
(2010) 6 SCC 555

9. U.P. State Road Transport Corp. And another Vs. Gopal Shukla and another (passed in Civil Appeal No.
2038 of 2012, decided on 1.9.2015

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora, J.)

1. Heard Mr. O. P. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Chandrashekhar
Pandey, learned Counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

2. By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the
petitioner has challenged order of dismissal dated 23.9.2003, appellate order dated 18.11.2003 and
revisional order dated 31.1.2005, contained in Annexure Nos. 1, 2 and 3, respectively, to the writ
petition.

3. Shorn off unnecessary details, the facts of the case are as under :-

4. On the basis of a report submitted by the Checking Staff on 22.04.2003, the petitioner,
namely, Manbodh Lal Srivastava, who was the Conductor and was posted in Cantt Depot, Varanasi
Region of the U.P. State Roadways Transport Corporation [in short referred to as the Corporation],
was placed under suspension by the Regional Manager of the Corporation in contemplation of the
disciplinary proceedings vide order dated 26.04.2003. A charge sheet dated 02.05.2003 containing
15 charges against the petitioner was served upon him. The main charge against the petitioner was
that on checking, the petitioner had failed to furnish the 'Way Bill" and also he did not issue tickets
to the passengers though he had realized fare from them and incited passengers against the
checking staff.

5. On receipt of the charge-sheet, the petitioner has submitted his reply denying the allegations
levelled against him and alleged that the checking staff had demanded illegal gratification from the
petitioner and on his inability to satisfy their demand, the checking staff had submitted a false
report, making accusations against him. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer concluded the enquiry and
submitted the report finding the charges levelled against the petitioner to be proved. After
submission of enquiry report, the Regional Manager [opposite party no.3] issued a show cause
notice to the petitioner annexing therewith a copy of the enquiry report. Ultimately, the petitioner
was removed from service vide order dated 23.09.2003 by the disciplinary authority/appointing
authority.

6. According to the petitioner, against the aforesaid punishment order, the petitioner preferred
an appeal, which was dismissed by the Pradhan Prabandhak (Karmik) [opposite party no.2] vide
order dated 18.11.2003. Being dis-satisfied by aforesaid two orders, the petitioner preferred a
revision petition before opposite party no.1 [Chairman, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation],
which too met with the same fate and was rejected vide order dated 31.01.2005.
130 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

7. Hence this writ petition.

8. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the disciplinary
proceedings were conducted against the petitioner in utter disregard of the principles of natural
justice. The appeal of the petitioner preferred against the punishment has been rejected in a
mechanical way without application of mind.

9. On the strength of the decision rendered in [2009 (1) ALJ 257] : State of Uttaranchal and
others vs. Kharak Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned orders are
bad in law as enquiry proceedings were completed in blatant disregard of the principles of natural
justice, as no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to defend himself and rebut the alleged
charges before the Enquiry Officer.

10. Refuting the allegations of the petitioner's Counsel, it has been pointed out by the Counsel
for the Corporation that the petitioner committed gross misconduct in collecting the money from 64
passengers and did not issue tickets to them. There were 76 passengers travelling in the bus and
only 12 passengers were issued tickets and that too erroneously, five passengers were issued
advance tickets of lesser fare from the station which was ahead to the inspection spot. If the Bus
had not been interrupted and checked in the way, the Conductor of the Bus might have succeeded
in embezzling the government money collected by charging ticket fare.

11. Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that in the enquiry, petitioner was given
ample opportunity to defend himself and after the charges were found proved against the petitioner
as he failed to prove his innocence, the impugned order of punishment has been passed. Therefore,
it is incorrect to say that reasonable opportunity was not afforded to the petitioner. As a matter of
fact the petitioner was given opportunity at every stage. The appellate as well as revisional
authority has also applied its mind and affirmed the order of punishment on account of gravity of
charges.

12. To substantiate his arguments, Counsel for the Corporation has relied upon Regional
Manager, U.P.SRTC, Etawah and others Vs. Hoti Lal and another : (2003) 3 SCC 605, V.
Ramana Vs. A.P. SRTC and others : (2005) 7 SCC 338, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation,
Dehradun Vs. Suresh Pal : (2006) 8 SCC 108, A.P.SRTC Vs. Raghuda Siv Sankar Prasad :
(2007) 1 SCC 222, U.P.SRTC Vs. Ram Kishan Arora : (2007) 4 SCC 627, Uttaranchal Transport
Corporation Vs. Sanjay Kumar Nautiyal : (2008) 12 SCC 131, U.P. State Road Transport
Corporation Vs. Suresh Chand Sharma : (2010) 6 SCC 555, and U.P. State Road Transport
Corp. and another Vs. Gopal Shukla and another (passed in Civil Appeal No. 2038 of 2012,
decided on 1.9.2015).

13. Before appreciating the rival submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties, it would
be apt to mention that the post of Conductor is a post of trust and the person guilty of breach of
trust is to be dealt with iron hand. The loss of confidence occupies the primary factor and not the
4 All. Manbodh Lal Srivastava Vs The U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors.
131
amount of money and sympathy and generosity cannot be a factor, which is permissible in law in
such matters.

14. In the case of V. Ramana (supra), which has been relied upon by the Corporation, the
Apex Court has held that a Conductor holds a post of trust. A person guilty of breach of trust
should be imposed punishment of removal from service. The appellant's conduct in collecting fare
at the designated place and not collecting fare from persons, who had already travelled were in
violation of various regulations contained in the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation Employees
(Conduct) Regulations, 1963.

15. Again, in the case of Raghuda Siva Sankar Prasad [supra] which has been relied upon by
the respondent, it has been held by the Apex Court that once an employee has lost the confidence of
the employer, it would not be safe and in the interest of the Corporation to continue the employee
in service.

16. In Hoti Lal (Supra), the Apex Court has considered the facts that the employee was a
conductor on duty in Bus No. UGG-108. While checking was done by the Assistant Regional
Manager, it was found that 16 persons were without ticket. Even after realizing fare from the
passengers, no ticket had been issued upto the time of Checking. These according to the authorities
amounted to dereliction of duty, violation of Employee's Conduct Code and misappropriating
employer's money. After being subjected to the disciplinary proceedings, the employee was
terminated. The order of termination was assailed in writ petition No. 4535/SS/1991, which was
dismissed. The matter was carried in Special Appeal before the Division Bench by the employee
and the Division Bench set aside the order of termination leaving it open to the employer to award
any punishment but not removal or termination or compulsory retirement. The correctness of the
said judgment passed by the Division Bench was questioned by the Corporation before the Apex
Court and the only point raised by the Corporation was whether the High Court was justified in
interfering with the quantum of punishment awarded to the respondent no.1-Hoti Lal. The Apex
Court while allowing the appeal and maintaining the order of removal held that the Court shall not
intervene unless the punishment is wholly disproportionate. Further the Court or Tribunal while
dealing with the quantum of punishment has to record reasons as to why it is felt that the
punishment does not commensurate with the proved charges.

17. Recently, in the case of Gopal Shukla [supra], the first respondent, namely, Gopal Shukla,
in identical situation like the petitioner, was visited with the punishment of dismissal. On an
industrial dispute being raised, the award was given in favour of employee by the Labour Court and
the employer was directed to reinstate the workman. The Corporation assailed the said award in a
writ petition before the High Court and the High Court concurred with the award relating to
reinstatement but as far as the grant of back wages is concerned, it reduced the same to 25 percent.
The correctness of aforesaid orders was questioned by the Corporation before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court and the Apex Court observed that in corruption cases, degree of corruption is immaterial and
no lenient attitude is required to be shown. The Apex Court upheld the order of disciplinary
authority who had dismissed the Bus Conductor for allowing 25 passengers to travel in the bus
132 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
without ticket, and reversed the concurrent findings of the Labour Court and High Court, who had
taken a lenient view, and had reinstated him to service. The Apex Court held that both the Labour
Court and the High Court have fallen in error by imposing a lesser punishment on the workman
whereas the only punishment, on establishment of the charges which have been accepted by the
labour court, should have been dismissal and not a lesser one. It would be useful to reproduce the
relevant observations:-

"The reasoning, if we allow ourselves to say, constrain us to ruminate whether the Labour
Court has been swayed away by the concept "forgiveness is the economy of the heart" and
dominantly affected by the conception "mercy among the virtues is like the moon among the stars",
totally remaining oblivious to the basic principle that when the workman shatters the "institutional
trust" and his act has the potentiality to corrode the faith and belief of the employer, does he
deserve any leniency. It is not the quantum per se but the breach of trust with reference to duty and
obligation of the employee that must be the edifice of consideration for imposition of punishment."

18. In the instant case, on 22.04.2003, the petitioner was found to be carrying 64 passengers
without ticket out of total 76 passengers during the checking by Assistant Transport Inspector,
Jaunpur while carrying Bus No. UP65E 1731 on Varanasi-Kerakat via Sindhaura route. The
Assistant Regional Manager was also present during the checking. These passengers were
travelling from Kutchehry to Sindhpur. The Assistant Transport Inspector had prepared a combined
ticket No. 2421561 and collected Rs. 1140/- from the passengers. The petitioner had also prepared
short distance tickets for 05 passengers. The petitioner has alleged that all the without ticket
passengers were students of Dobhi Post Graduate College who had boarded just before Police
Station Gosaipur and in spite of petitioner's repeated requests they did not purchase the tickets. In
these backgrounds, the petitioner directed the Driver of the Bus to stop the Bus at Police Station
Gosaipur but before reaching there the inspection was made in which 64 passengers were found
travelling without ticket. Thereafter, on the basis of inspection report, a complaint was made by the
inspecting authority to the Regional Manager, U.P.SRTC, Varanasi (opposite party No.3) who
instituted an enquiry against the petitioner and appointed Assistant Regional Manager, Kashi
Depot, Varanasi (opposite party No.4) as Enquiry Officer and in the enquiry, he was held guilty
and accordingly, he was dismissed from service.

19. In the inquiry report, this fact has found space that during checking 64 without ticket
passengers had been found who were travelling from Katchehry to Sidhaura while the fare had
already been taken. For these 64 without ticket passengers, a single group ticket bearing number
2421561 amounting to Rs. 1140/- including penalty had been prepared which establishes that the
stand of the petitioner is an afterthought and as such, petitioner cannot be absolved of the charges
levelled against him.

20. In view of the aforesaid discussions, there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned
order of punishment.

21. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
4 All. State Of U.P. Vs Permanent Lok Adalat, Ajamgarh & Anr.
133

22. Costs easy.
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.08.2015

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No.- 3114 Of 2015

State Of U.P. ...Petitioner
Versus
Permanent Lok Adalat, Ajamgarh & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for Petitioner
Addl. C.S.C.

The present petition has been preferred against the award dated 16.9.2014 passed by Permanent Lok Adalat,
Azamgarh, wherein a sum of Rs.5 lacs has been awarded to the second respondent on account of death of
her husband, extending the benefit of Krishak Durghatna Bima Yojna, to the dependant. The State
Government launched an insurance policy for covering the agriculturists who die or get disabled, by means of
a Government Order dated 22/10/2012. The husband of the second respondent died on 27/2/2013. Petition
was filed before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Azamgarh praying for payment of insurance amount of Rs.5 lacs
under the government order, alleging that her husband was an agriculturist and was covered by the
government order.

Learned counsel for the second respondent argued that the father-in-law of the second respondent inherited
agricultural land. He died on 12/7/2012. Thereafter, husband of the second respondent initiated proceedings
for mutation of his name. However, while the said application was pending, he died on 27/2/2013

The court held that through the findings recorded in this regard by the majority of the members of the
Permanent Lok Adalat has found no illegality therein. The government order dated 22/10/2012 is a socio
beneficial measure. Its purpose is to provide social security to the agriculturists and the members of their
family. Even if the name of the husband of the second respondent could not be mutated in the revenue
records during his life-time, the same will not dis-entitle the second respondent to claim the insurance amount
under the government order dated 22/10/2012.

The petition lacks merit and is dismissed.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)

1. Heard Sri Vivek Shandilya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the petitioner
and Sri Virendra Pratap Singh for the second respondent.

2. The State of U.P., which is petitioner herein, has challenged the award dated 16.9.2014
passed by Permanent Lok Adalat, Azamgarh in case no. 860 of 2013 awarding a sum of Rs.5 lacs