# Mohd. Arif v. U.P. State Road Transport Corp. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 12 ILRA 955
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-12-19
- **Case number:** Writ - A No. 6734 of 2002
- **Bench:** Amitabh Kumar Rai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohd-arif-v-u-p-state-road-transport-corp-ors-54866
- **Pages:** 8

## Text

12 All. Mohd. Arif Vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corp. & Ors.
955
Commission, Uttar Pradesh, when
selected candidates do not assume charge,
then, except for single-post cadres, no
action for preparation of waiting list or
reshuffling shall be taken in other cadres.

2. In view of the difficulties
coming
before
the
Government,
the
undersigned has been directed to state that,
after due consideration, His Excellency the
Governor is pleased to accord approval to
substituting paragraph 2(2) of the Office
Memorandum dated 15.11.1999 as under:

 "2(2) - After receipt of the
recommendations in respect of selected
candidates, they must be made to assume
charge; however, where the concerned
department/institution/organization
has
been completely wound up, or where any
Honble Court has passed a contrary
order, or where, due to defective requisition
being sent/the posts mentioned in the
requisition not being available, it shall not
be mandatory to make the selected
candidates assume charge."

 3. The provisions of this Office
Memorandum shall also be effective in
those selections in which recommendations
have already been made available by the
Commission to the concerned departments.

 4.
Kindly
ensure
strict
compliance with the above instructions at
every level.

Sd/ [Illegible]
Principal Secretary

 No. 28/5/80(1)-Ka-4-2014, Of the
same date

Copy forwarded for information
and necessary action to:
1.
All
Principal
Secretaries/Secretaries,
Government
of
Uttar Pradesh.
2.
Secretary,
Public
Service
Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad.
3.
All
Heads
of
Departments/Principal Heads of Offices,
Uttar Pradesh.

4. Principal Secretary, Legislative
Council/Legislative
Assembly,
Uttar
Pradesh.
5. All Sections of the Secretariat.

By order,
Sd/- [Illegible]
Special Secretary
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 955
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ - A No. 6734 of 2002

Mohd. Arif ...Petitioner
Versus
U.P. State Road Transport Corp. & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
(1) Effect of non-recording the statements of
independent witnesses on the validity of the
disciplinary proceedings.
(2) Scope of writ jurisdiction while dealing with
the issues relating to disciplinary proceedings.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Removal from service -
Post
of
Conductor
-
Disciplinary
proceedings - Charge of corruption and
misconduct by taking 30 passengers out
of
83
for
travel
without
ticket,
consequently embezzle the income of
corporation - Petitioner claimed enquiry
956 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
illegal for the reason of not examining
certain witnesses - Permissibility. (E-1)
Held : Claim of the petitioner that certain
witnesses were not examined during the course
of inquiry proceedings is unsustainable, as the
petitioner himself, during the course of inquiry
proceedings, forgo his right to examine them by
insisting upon the Inquiry Officer to complete
the inquiry
without examination
of such
witnesses - In a departmental enquiry, the strict
and technical rules of evidence are not
applicable - Non-recording of statements of
independent witnesses, such as passengers,
would not vitiate the disciplinary proceedings or
render them invalid. [Paras 13 and 14]
(B) Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Writ - Judicial review - Disciplinary
proceeding - Scope of interference. (E-1)
Held : Scope of writ jurisdiction while dealing
with issues relating to disciplinary proceedings is
limited. The power of judicial review is confined
to the decision-making process and the power
of judicial review conferred on a Constitutional
Court or Tribunal is limited [Para 21]

Case Law Cited
State of Haryana and Another vs. Rattan Singh,
1977 SCC OnLine SC 145; U.P. State Road
Trasnport
Corporation
vs.
Suresh
Chand
Sharma, (2010) SCC OnLine SC 648; State of
A.P. vs. S. Sree Rama Rao : AIR 1963 SC 1723;
B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India : 1996 SCC
(L&S) 80; High Court of Bombay vs. Shashikant
S. Patil : (2000) 1 SCC 416; State Bank of
Bikaner & Jaipur vs. Nemi Chand Nalwaya :
(2011) 4 SCC 584; Union of India vs. P.
Gunasekaran : (2015) 2 SCC 610 - referred to.

List of Acts
Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation
Employees
(Other
Than
Officers)
Service
Regulations, 1981 - Regulation 64.

List of Keywords
Removal from service; Corruption; Misconduct;
Disciplinary proceeding; Departmental appeal;
Writ jurisdiction; Judicial review.

Case Arising From
Order dated 31.05.2002 removing the petitioner
from service.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner : Brijesh Kumar,
Abhishek Singh, Raza Ali Khan, Sameer Singh,
Syed Shabih Haider, Zuber Hasan.
Advs. for the Respondents
: Mahesh
Chandra, Puneet Chandra, Ratnesh Chandra.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Amitabh Kumar
Rai, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sameer Singh, learned
counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Ratnesh
Chandra,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondents.

2. The present writ petition has
been filed challenging the order dated
31.05.2002
passed
by
the
Regional
Manager,
Uttar
Pradesh
State
Road
Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred
to as UPSRTC) Lucknow Region,
Lucknow, whereby the petitioner was
awarded punishment of removal from
service, as well as the appellate order dated
10.09.2002 by which the appeal of the
petitioner was rejected by respondent no. 3,
Mandaliya Pradhan Prabandhak (Central
Zone), UPSRTC, Terhi Kothi, Lucknow.

3. The brief facts of the case are
that the petitioner, while posted on the post
of Conductor at Mirzapur Depot, Allahabad
Region, was running passenger bus bearing
vehicle registration no. U.R.S. 9938 en
route from Renukot to Lucknow on
09.03.1990. At about 16:45 hours, between
Renukot and Robertsganj, the bus was
stopped by the inspection team at a place
namely Gurmura, and on inspection it was
found that out of 83 passengers, 30
passengers were without tickets, though the
fare from them was realised by the
petitioner. The inspection team was headed
by Sri Heera Lal Upadhyay, Senior Centre
In-charge (Checking), along with two
Assistant Traffic Inspectors. The inspection
team, on finding that 30 passengers were
12 All. Mohd. Arif Vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corp. & Ors.
957
without ticket, issued a common ticket no.
660966
for
all
passengers,
and
an
inspection report dated 15.09.1990 was
forwarded to the Regional Office for
further action.

4. Thereafter, a charge-sheet dated
25.09.1990 was issued in which it was
alleged that the petitioner realised Rs. 285
from 30 passengers out of a total of 83
passengers but did not issue tickets to them
for travelling from Renukot to Robertsganj,
as per inspection held on 09.03.1990 at
16:45 hours.
By
such
conduct,
the
petitioner was held guilty of four charges,
i.e., (i) taking 30 passengers for travel in
the bus without tickets; (ii) attempt to
embezzle the income of the corporation;
(iii) involving himself in corruption and
misconduct; and (iv) discharging duty in
violation of rules. In support of the charges,
the inspection report was annexed with the
charge-sheet, and it was also provided that
the way-bills and tickets, could be pursued
by the petitioner the same in the Regional
Office. It was further required by the
charge-sheet that the petitioner should file a
reply to the charges within 15 days and also
inform about the witnesses whom he
wanted
to
cross-examine
and
other
evidence which he wanted to rely upon in
defence of the charges against him.

5. The petitioner filed his reply to
the charges vide his letter dated 30.11.1990
denying
the
charges,
in
which
he
specifically mentioned for examining of
two passengers who were present in the bus
on the date of the inspection / checking on
09.03.1990. He also made reference that
the inspection report was not supported by
any independent witness and, as such,
could not be relied upon. During the course
of inquiry, the inspection report was proved
by Heera Lal Upadhyay, In-charge of the
Inspection Team, and the petitioner also
cross examined Sri Heera Lal Upadhyay in
detail. The petitioner could not get his
witnesses examined, and in the meantime
he was transferred to Faizabad Region and
the Assistant Regional Manager (Karmik)
was nominated as the new Inquiry Officer.
Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer called upon
the petitioner for personal hearing, and Sri
K.P. Tiwari, Assistant Traffic Inspector,
one of the members of the inspection team,
was examined at the instance of the
petitioner on 15.03.1998.

6. The petitioner, during the course
of inquiry proceedings, produced one of his
witnesses, Sri Vinod Kumar, who stated
that from Renukot there were 20 to 30
passengers and after 5 to 7 kms the
inspection team confronted the bus, and he
overheard that there were 30 passengers.
He further stated that he had come as a
witness as the conductor had called upon
him to give his statement in the disciplinary
proceedings. On 15.01.1998, the petitioner
appeared before the Inquiry Officer and
recorded his statement that his reply to the
charge-sheet should be considered as his
defence and that he did not want to
examine any other person and the inquiry
might be completed.

7. The Inquiry Officer, after
considering the statements of the witnesses
as well as the inspection report and other
evidence produced during the course of
inquiry
proceedings,
came
to
the
conclusion that the charges against the
petitioner of allowing 30 passengers to
travel without tickets after realising fare to
the tune of Rs. 285, but not issuing any
ticket to them, stood established and
proved. Thereafter, a show-cause notice
dated 29.01.1998 was issued to the
petitioner by the disciplinary authority
958 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
along with a copy of the inquiry report, to
which the petitioner submitted his reply
vide
letter
dated
25.02.1998.
The
disciplinary authority, i.e., the Regional
Manager, UPSRTC, Lucknow Region,
Lucknow, thereafter passed the punishment
order dated 31.05.2002 terminating the
services of the petitioner by awarding the
punishment of removal.

8. The petitioner thereafter filed a
departmental appeal under Regulation 64 of
the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport
Corporation
Employees
(Other
Than
Officers)
Service
Regulations,
1981
(hereinafter referred to as Regulations,
1981) before the next higher authority,
i.e.,
Mandaliya
Pradhan
Prabandhak
(Central Zone), UPSRTC, Terhi Kothi,
Lucknow, which was rejected after due
consideration vide order dated 10.09.2002.

9. The petitioner has assailed the
order of removal dated 31.05.2002 on the
following grounds:

 (i) No date and time were fixed
by the Inquiry Officer during the course
of
inquiry
proceedings,
and
the
disciplinary authority also did not fix any
date and time before passing the order
dated 31.05.2002.

 (ii) The driver of the bus was not
charged with the offence of carrying
ticketless
passengers,
and
only
the
petitioner was charged, which amounts to
discrimination.

 (iii) One independent witness
examined by the petitioner, namely Vinod,
and another independent witness, Mohd.
Abbas, who was to be produced by the
petitioner, could not be examined by the
Inquiry Officer.
 (iv) The third member of the
inspection team, i.e., Sri K.P. Tiwari,
Assistant Traffic Inspector, who was also
part of the inspection team, was not
examined by the Inquiry Officer.

 (v) The disciplinary authority,
vide letter dated 10.03.1998, called upon
Sri Heera Lal Upadhyay for certain
clarifications, but he did not appear before
the disciplinary authority, and as such the
disciplinary authority should not have
proceeded to pass the order of punishment.

 (vi) The charges against the
petitioner were stale, and after four years of
submission of the reply to the show-cause
notice, the order of punishment was passed.

 (vii) The order has been passed
by the Regional Manager, UPSRTC, who is
not the competent authority to pass the
order of removal, as the Assistant Regional
Manager is the appointing authority of the
petitioner as per the resolution of the Board
dated 29.02.1996.

10. Part X of the Regulations of
1981, from Regulation 61 to 69, contains
the provisions with respect to conduct,
punishment and appeal of the employees of
the Corporation. Regulation of 1981 is
applicable to Group C and D
employees
of
the
Corporation.
The
petitioner was a Group C employee,
and hence the disciplinary proceedings
against him are governed by the provisions
of the Regulations of 1981. Regulation 64
of the Regulations of 1981 provides the
procedure for awarding major penalties.

11. After going through the records
annexed with the record of the writ petition
as well as the counter affidavit filed in the
present case, it transpires that the charge-
12 All. Mohd. Arif Vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corp. & Ors.
959
sheet was issued on 23.09.1990, which
contained definite charges against the
petitioner.
The
inquiry
report
dated
17.01.1998 discloses that the petitioner was
granted opportunity of examination and
cross-examination of witnesses produced
by
the
Corporation
as
well.
The
independent witness produced by the
petitioner, who was a passenger traveling in
the bus when the inspection / checking was
done on 09.03.1990 was also examined.

12. The petitioner has alleged in
memo of writ petition that Sri K.P. Tiwari,
Assistant Traffic Inspector, who was the
third member of the inspection team, was
not examined and another independent
witness, namely Mohd. Abbas, was also not
examined by the Inquiry Officer which
vitiates the disciplinary proceedings. From
the records, it transpires that the petitioner
himself insisted before the Inquiry Officer
to close the inquiry on the basis of his
statement
and
the
witnesses
already
produced by him, along with his reply to
the charges, which is evident from the
statement made by the petitioner on
15.01.1998 before the Inquiry Officer. The
relevant extract, as recorded in the inquiry
report, is reproduced hereinbelow :-

 "धिनांक-15-1-98
को
पररचालक
उपक्तस्र्थत हुआ और अपना बर्ान धिर्ा धक धिर्े
गर्े स्पष्टीकरण को ही मेरा ब्यान माना जार्े
जाचं अधिकारी द्वारा पूछे जाने पर स्पष्ट धकर्ा
धक मुख्य ररपोटाकताा से बर्ान होचुका है। श्री
के० पी० धतवारी से पूछतांझ करता परन्तु कई
धतधर्थ लगार्ी गर्ी वे उपक्तस्र्थत नहीं हुए और अब
पूछतांश नहीं करनी है जांच ररपोटा भेज िी
जार्े।"

13. Thus, the claim of the petitioner
that certain witnesses were not examined
during the course of inquiry proceedings is
unsustainable, as the petitioner himself,
during the course of inquiry proceedings,
forgo his right to examine them by insisting
upon the Inquiry Officer to complete the
inquiry
without
examination
of
such
witnesses.

14. Moreover, with regard to the
testimony of independent witnesses, the
Honble Supreme Court, in the case of State
of Haryana and Another v. Rattan Singh
(1977 SCC OnLine SC 145), has held that in
a departmental enquiry, the strict and
technical rules of evidence are not applicable.
The Court further held that the non-recording
of statements of independent witnesses, such
as
passengers,
would not vitiate
the
disciplinary proceedings or render them
invalid. Paragraph 5 of the said judgment is
relevant for the present case and is
reproduced hereinbelow:-

 "5. Reliance was placed, as earlier
stated, on the non-compliance with the
departmental instruction that statements of
passengers should be recorded by inspectOrs.
These are instructions of prudence, not rules
that bind or vitiate in the violation. In this case,
the Inspector tried to get the statements but the
passengers declined, the psychology of the
latter
in
such
circumstances
being
understandable, although may not be approved.
We cannot hold that merely because
statements of passengers were not recorded
the order that followed was invalid. Likewise,
the reavaluation of the evidence on the strength
of co-conductor's testimony is a matter not for
the court but for the administrative tribunal in
conclusion, we do not think the courts below
were right in over-turning the finding of the
domestic tribunal"
 (emphasis added)

15. The aforesaid principle of law
has been reiterated by the Honble
960 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State
Road Trasnport Corporation v. Suresh
Chand Sharma (2010) SCC OnLine SC
648 and paragraph 16 of the said judgement
is quoted hereinbelow :-

 "16. In State of Haryana & Anr.
v. Rattan Singh AIR 1977 SC 1512, this
Court has categorically held that in a
domestic enquiry, complicated principles
and procedurelaid down in the Civil
Procedure Code, 1908 and the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 do not apply. The only
right of a delinquent employee is that he
must be informed as to what are the
charges against him and he must be given
full opportunity to defend himself on the
said charges. However, the Court rejected
the contention that enquiry report stood
vitiated for not recording the statement of
the passengers who were found travelling
without ticket..."

 Hence, the contention of the
petitioner that the enquiry proceedings
stand
vitiated
on
account
of
nonexamination
of
certain
witnesses
is
unsustainable.

16. The claim of the petitioner that
the Regional Manager is not the competent
authority to pass the order of removal is
also not tenable, as the Regional Manager
is higher in post than the Assistant
Regional Manager, and as such it cannot be
said that the Regional Manager was not
competent to pass the order of removal
against the petitioner.

17. The petitioner has also alleged
that the disciplinary authority, vide letter
dated 10.03.1998, called upon Sri Heera
Lal Upadhyay, In-charge of the Inspection
Team,
before
passing
the
order
of
punishment, but he did not appear, and as
such the disciplinary authority could not
have passed the order of punishment. In
this regard, the Court has gone through the
letter dated 10.03.1998, which was issued
by the Regional Manager, Faizabad Region
which only reflects that for certain
clarifications, Heera Lal Upadhyay was
called upon with respect to the inspection
report and for that purpose was required to
appear before the Regional Manager on
20.03.1998. This aspect was considered by
the appellate authority while passing the
order dated 10.09.2002, and it has been
clarified that though the Regional Manager,
Faizabad
Region,
vide
letter
dated
10.03.1998 sought certain clarifications, the
Regional
Manager,
Lucknow,
who
ultimately passed the punishment order, did
not find it necessary to seek any such
clarification and he, on the basis of the
inquiry report, reply and the evidences
available with the record of the enquiry
proceedings
passed
the
order
of
punishment, which is justified.

18. This Court is of the view that
merely by issuance of the letter dated
10.03.1998 by the Regional Manager,
Faizabad, seeking clarification, it cannot be
said that the Regional Manager, Lucknow,
should have also sought such clarification.
It is the satisfaction of the disciplinary
authority, on the basis of material available
before him, to take a decision with regard
to the charges. Once the disciplinary
authority has taken the decision that the
petitioner, on the basis of the material on
record, i.e., the inquiry report, statements of
witnesses recorded during the course of
inquiry, reply of the petitioner, and other
evidence, is guilty, he is well within his
right to pass appropriate orders.

19. The petitioner has also raised a
question mark on the findings recorded by
12 All. Mohd. Arif Vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corp. & Ors.
961
the Inquiry Officer on the basis of
allegation of bias against the In-charge of
the inspection team, Heera Lal Upadhyay.
The court is of view that such allegation of
the petitioner, to the extent of the
conclusion arrived at by the Inquiry
Officer, is also not tenable, for the reason
that the petitioner has not made any
specific allegation of bias. Merely, because
the inspection team did not rely upon the
version of the petitioner while preparing
the inspection report cannot be a reason to
say that the inspection team led by Shri
Heera Lal Upadhyaya was biased against
the petitioner.

20. The Court has also gone
through
the
appellate
order
dated
10.09.2002 and finds that it is a wellconsidered
and
reasoned
order.
The
grounds taken in the memorandum of
appeal filed by the petitioner were duly
considered by respondent no. 3 before
passing the order dated 10.09.2002.

21. It is needless to mention that
the scope of writ jurisdiction while dealing
with
issues
relating
to
disciplinary
proceedings is limited. The power of
judicial review is confined to the decisionmaking process and the power of judicial
review conferred on a Constitutional Court
or Tribunal is limited.

22. In State of A.P. v. S. Sree
Rama Rao : AIR 1963 SC 1723, a threeJudge Bench of Supreme Court has held
that the High Court is not a court of appeal
over the decision of the authorities holding
a departmental inquiry against a public
servant. It is concerned to determine
whether the inquiry is held by an authority
competent in that behalf, and according to
the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and
whether the rules of natural justice are not
violated.

23. In B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union
of India : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80, a threeJudge Bench of Supreme Court has held
that power of judicial review is not an
appeal from a decision but a review of the
manner in which the decision is made.
Power of judicial review is meant to ensure
that the individual receives fair treatment
and not to ensure that the conclusion which
the authority reaches is necessarily correct
in the eyes of the court. The court/tribunal
in its power of judicial review does not act
as an appellate authority to re-appreciate
the evidence and to arrive at its own
independent findings on the evidence.

24. In High Court of Bombay v.
Shashikant S. Patil : (2000) 1 SCC 416,
Supreme Court held that interference with
the decision of departmental authorities is
permitted if such authority had held
proceedings in violation of the principles of
natural justice or in violation of statutory
regulations prescribing the mode of such
inquiry while exercising jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution.

25. In State Bank of Bikaner &
Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya : (2011)
4 SCC 584, Supreme Court held that the
courts will not act as an appellate court and
reassess the evidence led in the domestic
enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that
another view is possible on the material
on record. If the inquiry has been fairly
and properly held and the findings are
based on evidence, the question of
adequacy of the evidence or the reliable
nature of the evidence will not be ground
for interfering with the findings in
departmental Inquiries.
962 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
26. In another judgment reported as
Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran : (2015)
2 SCC 610, Supreme Court held that while
re-appreciating evidence the High Court
cannot act as an appellate authority in the
disciplinary proceedings. The Court laid
down the parameters as to when the High
Court shall not interfere in the disciplinary
proceedings : (SCC p. 617, para 13)

 "13. Under Articles 226/227 of
the Constitution of India, the High Court
shall not:

 (i) reappreciate the evidence;

 (ii) interfere with the conclusions
in the enquiry, in case the same has been
conducted in accordance with law;

 (iii) go into the adequacy of the
evidence;

 (iv) go into the reliability of the
evidence;

 (v) interfere, if there be some
legal evidence on which findings can be
based.

 (vi) correct the error of fact
however grave it may appear to be;

 (vii) go into the proportionality of
punishment
unless
it
shocks
its
conscience."

27. In view of the aforesaid
proposition of law laid down by the
Honble Supreme Court and the analysis
of the facts of the present case as recorded
hereinabove, this Court finds no illegality
or infirmity in the order of removal dated
31.05.2002 and the appellate order dated
10.09.2002.
28. Accordingly, this writ petition
fails and is dismissed.

29. No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 962
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 15.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Writ - A No. 14162 of 2025

Amrendra Kumar Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Ltd. Thru M.D. & Ors.
 ...Respondent

Issue for consideration
Whether inquiry proceeding can be initiated
against a retired employee, when the chargesheet has been issued after the retirement?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - Working Manual of the
respondent Corporation: Rule 709(gha) -
Departmental proceedings can commence
only when the charge-sheet is issued to
the
delinquent
employee.
In
fact,
pendency of inquiry would be if such
proceeding is commenced. (Para 15, 16)

In present case, this is an admitted fact that the
charge-sheet has been issued on 8th August
2022, i.e., after the retirement of the delinquent
employee,
and
therefore,
the
date
of
commencement of the disciplinary proceeding
would be 8th August 2022, and therefore, the
provisions of Rule 709(gha), do not attract in
the facts and circumstances of the present case.
(Para 17)

B.
Further
the
Working
Manual
clause/table
709(cha)
also
does
not
favour proceedings undertaken by the
respondent Corporation as the date of
initiation of inquiry is 8th August 2025.
(Para 18)