# Naththi Lal v. Asstt.Regional Manager UPSRTC & another

- **Citation:** (2012) 2 ILRA 600
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-04-18
- **Bench:** Bharati Sapru
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/naththi-lal-v-asstt-regional-manager-upsrtc-another-42223
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226termination
from
service-petitioner
2 All] Naththi Lal V. Asstt.Regional Manager UPSRTC & another
601
working as driver-refused to taking Bus
out unless repaired-considering terrible
risk of accident-on charge of indisciplinedismissal order passed-while corporation
employee
admitted
during
cross
examination
that
left
side
bus
suspension was broken-held-punishment
of dismissal too harsh-moreover no
dereliction of duty but the driver acted
with due caution and prudence can not
be termed as indiscipline-termination
order quashed.

Held: Para 11 and 12

In my opinion that the driver while
taking a stand with regard to the broken
suspension had acted prudently and had
done so in the best interest of all
involved and most of all passengers who
would have travelled on that bus. The
driver in my opinion had taken due
caution in the matter and had not
indulged in any dereliction of duty nor
had caused any harm or loss to the
corporation by his decision. Should any
accident had taken place then too, the
blame would have been fixed on the
driver.

In the facts and circumstances of the
case, I am of the opinion that the driver
acted with due caution and prudence.
The punishment imposed by way of the
impugned order, is, therefore excessive
and too harsh, which is, accordingly, set
aside.

## Text

600 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Dubey,
Advocate holding brief on behalf of Sri
Umesh Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for
the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel
for the respondents.

2. This writ petition is directed against
the order dated 31.01.2007 passed by
Additional District Magistrate, Etawah
cancelling firearm licence of petitioner
observing that allowing licence with
petitioner is not in public interest. For the
same reason the Commissioner has also
rejected petitioner's appeal vide order dated
19.07.2008, which has also been impugned
in this writ petition.

3. Both the authorities below have
recorded their satisfaction that cancellation
of petitioner's firearm licence is necessary
for public interest. Under Section 17 of
Arms Act a firearm licence cannot be
cancelled in public interest. The grounds
specifically mentioned says that it is only
either of public peace or safety. The word
"public interest" is not the same thing as
"public peace" or "public safety". In fact the
word "public interest" is much wider than
the word "public peace" or "public safety".
When Legislature itself has not conferred
any power upon the licensing authority to
cancel a firearm licence in public interest,
such exercise in public interest by
authorities
below
is
wholly
without
jurisdiction.

4. In Dharamvir Singh Vs. The
State, 2003 All L.J. 1769, the Court in para
6 of the judgement said:

"There
is
no
finding
that
the
revocation of licence was considered
necessary for the security of the public
peace or public safety. Public interest
cannot be equated to term for the security of
the public peace or public safety. . . . . . ."

5. The above decision has been
followed in Rajendra Deo Pandey Vs.
State of U.P. and others, 2012(4) ADJ
716.

6. Learned Standing Counsel also
could not dispute having gone through the
impugned orders that the two orders have
been passed holding that it is necessary in
public interest and no for the reasons stated
in Section 17(3)(b) of the Act.

7. In the result, the writ petition is
allowed. The impugned orders dated
31.01.2007 and 19.07.2008 are hereby
quashed. No costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.04.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE BHARATI SAPRU, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 10855 of 1998

Naththi Lal

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Asstt.Regional
Manager
UPSRTC
&
another

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rajiv Sharma
Sri A.K. Tripathi
Sri T.R. Gupta
Sri Rahul Sahai

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.
Sri V.P. Mathur
Sri Samir Sharma

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226termination
from
service-petitioner
2 All] Naththi Lal V. Asstt.Regional Manager UPSRTC & another
601
working as driver-refused to taking Bus
out unless repaired-considering terrible
risk of accident-on charge of indisciplinedismissal order passed-while corporation
employee
admitted
during
cross
examination
that
left
side
bus
suspension was broken-held-punishment
of dismissal too harsh-moreover no
dereliction of duty but the driver acted
with due caution and prudence can not
be termed as indiscipline-termination
order quashed.

Held: Para 11 and 12

In my opinion that the driver while
taking a stand with regard to the broken
suspension had acted prudently and had
done so in the best interest of all
involved and most of all passengers who
would have travelled on that bus. The
driver in my opinion had taken due
caution in the matter and had not
indulged in any dereliction of duty nor
had caused any harm or loss to the
corporation by his decision. Should any
accident had taken place then too, the
blame would have been fixed on the
driver.

In the facts and circumstances of the
case, I am of the opinion that the driver
acted with due caution and prudence.
The punishment imposed by way of the
impugned order, is, therefore excessive
and too harsh, which is, accordingly, set
aside.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Bharati Sapru, J.)

1. This petition has been filed by the
petitioner against an order of termination
passed by the respondent no.1 on
22.4.1997 by which the petitioner who
was a driver in the respondent corporation
has been removed from service.

2. The facts of the case are that the
petitioner was a driver was deputed to
drive bus no.9055. On 31.3.1996 he was
supposed to take the bus out which was to
carry passengers but the petitioner refuses
to take the bus out on the ground that the
bus was not in a fit condition to be taken
on the road or to carry passengers.

3. The specific plea taken by the
petitioner was that the left side fork of the
suspension was broken and the vehicle
was not in a condition to carry passengers.

4. According to the petitioner he
refused taking the bus out unless the bus
was properly repaired as there was a
terrible risk of an accident thereby
causing loss to human life.

5. The petitioner was asked to take
the bus out despite his insistence and
when he refused, a charge of indiscipline
was levelled against him.

6. It has come on record in the order
itself that one of the officials himself
found that the suspension was broken on
the left side of the bus but had been tied
up. This evidence was given by Prabhakar
Sharma. The other evidence which was
given by the member of the corporation
was that the bus could have been driven.

7. For this act of indiscipline, the
enquiry officer has found the petitioner
guilty and the petitioner was terminated
from service.

8. Having heard learned counsel for
both sides and having perused the
material on record, I am of the opinion
that the punishment imposed on the
petitioner
is
too
harsh
and
disproportionate for reasons that the
petitioner has been terminated for one
single act of so-called indiscipline.
602 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

9. Prior to this, the record does not
reflect that the petitioner has ever been
guilty of any ground of indiscipline.

10. Insofar as the charge of
indiscipline levelled against the petitioner
in the case in hand, is concerned, I am of
the opinion that the so-called act of
indiscipline cannot be termed as an act of
indiscipline because it is the part of the
discipline of a driver to take vehicle out
on road only he ensures that the vehicle is
road worthy and fit to carry passengers
and it should not in any manner pose any
risk to human life.

11. In my opinion that the driver
while taking a stand with regard to the
broken suspension had acted prudently
and had done so in the best interest of all
involved and most of all passengers who
would have travelled on that bus. The
driver in my opinion had taken due
caution in the matter and had not indulged
in any dereliction of duty nor had caused
any harm or loss to the corporation by his
decision. Should any accident had taken
place then too, the blame would have
been fixed on the driver.

12. In the facts and circumstances of
the case, I am of the opinion that the
driver acted with due caution and
prudence. The punishment imposed by
way of the impugned order, is, therefore
excessive and too harsh, which is,
accordingly, set aside.

13. The writ petition is allowed as
above. No costs.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.05.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17313 of 1997

U.P.S.R.T.C. & another
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Brij Nandan Lal & others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri V.M. Sahai
Sri M.M.Sahai

Counsel for the Respondents
C.S.C.
Sri B.N.Singh

Constitution of India, Article 226-Labor
Court
award-granting
designation
of
store
clerk
with
all
consequential
benefits challenged-on ground workman
engaged on post of Mazdoor-discharge
work of clerk-can not give any right to
claim salary on basis of equal pay for
equal
work-unless
appointed
on
promoted post in accordance with Rulesvirtually Labor Court even recording the
findings about no vacancy-in garb of
reinstatement granted promotion-while
lump sum amount of compensation could
be given on want of vacancy-heldLabour Court exceeded its jurisdictionaward set a side-whatsoever amount
given-should not be recovered.

Held: Para 16 anda 17

The
mere
fact
that
a
person
is
discharging duties of a particular nature
would not entitle him to claim a right to
the post or else other benefits of that
post unless he is appointed on the post
in
accordance
with
the
procedure
prescribed in law.

From the award of Labour Court it also
does not appear that the whole sole