# Raj Kiran Singh v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 3 ILRA 874
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-03-04
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 10743 of 2018
- **Bench:** Ajay Bhanot
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/raj-kiran-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53249
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Termination - The
enquiry officer had admittedly failed to
make a specific indictment on either of the
two elements which composed the first
charge. By omitting to make a specific
finding in regard to the charge, the
enquiry officer erred in law.

The enquiry report did not find whether the
petitioner was guilty of negligence or corruption.
Either the conductor is guilty of negligence or he
is guilty of corruption. Indictment on one
element
of
the
said
charge
would
automatically lead to exoneration on the
other aspect of the charge. In the facts of
this case he cannot be held guilty of both acts
of misconduct simultaneously. In absence of
clear cut indictment and due to the broad
brushed finding of guilt, the petitioner was
disabled from tendering an effective defence of
his case and to state the mitigative factors in his
favour. (Para 7)

B. The indictment made by the enquiry
officer on the second charge is vitiated on
account of non application of mind to the
defence of the petitioner in this regard.
The defence of the petitioner against the second
charge was that the load factor had been
incorrectly calculated. The passengers who had
used the monthly passes and the condition of
the
vehicle
were
not
considered
while
determining the load factor. (Para 9)

The disciplinary authority placed exclusive
reliance on the aforesaid findings of the enquiry
3 All. Raj Kiran Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
875
officer while passing the impugned order dated
20.02.2016. The defence tendered by the
petitioner was consistently overlooked by all the
authorities below. The impugned orders passed
by the appellate authority dated 27.07.2016 and
the revising authority dated 07.03.2018 fare no
better. Hence, aforementioned orders are set
aside. (Para 10, 11, 14)

The matter is remitted the respondent No.5Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport
Corporation,
Aligarh
with
directions.
All
entitlements claimed by the petitioner shall be
determined after the final order is passed in
pursuance of this judgment. (Para 15, 16)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

## Text

874 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
cause of death. However, neither the
investigating agency nor the prosecution at
any stage made any effort to get the DNA
test done. Also we are of the view that the
case was that of the circumstantial
evidence. However, none of the evidence
was such which would make the Court
believe that there could be only one
conclusion and that was that Akram and
Shamim had done away with the deceased
Salman. Further, we are definitely of the
view that if the motive had to be
established then the accused had to be
confronted with a definite question when
they were giving their statement under
Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Also we are of the
view that a very important witness namely
Benazeer who could have definitely been
produced in the witness box, was never
produced by the prosecution in the witness
box. Thus having found that the recovery
under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and
the recovery of the skeleton were bad and
also when we find that a DNA test which
was essential and compulsory was not done
then the Court can arrive at only one
conclusion and i.e. that the accused had
been wrongly implicated in the case and
that the charges as were levelled against the
appellants were never proved.

15. The appellants are acquitted of all
the charges. The judgment and order dated
25.02.2021 is quashed and is set-aside.

16. The instant Criminal Appeal is
accordingly, allowed.
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 874
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.
Writ A No. 10743 of 2018

Raj Kiran Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ajay Kumar Srivastava, Samir Sharma
(Senior Adv.)

Counsel for the Respondents:
Anadi Krishna Narayana, C.S.C., Mangla
Prasad Rai (Senior Adv.), Sarveshwar Lal
Srivastava, U.S. Singh Visen

A. Service Law - Termination - The
enquiry officer had admittedly failed to
make a specific indictment on either of the
two elements which composed the first
charge. By omitting to make a specific
finding in regard to the charge, the
enquiry officer erred in law.

The enquiry report did not find whether the
petitioner was guilty of negligence or corruption.
Either the conductor is guilty of negligence or he
is guilty of corruption. Indictment on one
element
of
the
said
charge
would
automatically lead to exoneration on the
other aspect of the charge. In the facts of
this case he cannot be held guilty of both acts
of misconduct simultaneously. In absence of
clear cut indictment and due to the broad
brushed finding of guilt, the petitioner was
disabled from tendering an effective defence of
his case and to state the mitigative factors in his
favour. (Para 7)

B. The indictment made by the enquiry
officer on the second charge is vitiated on
account of non application of mind to the
defence of the petitioner in this regard.
The defence of the petitioner against the second
charge was that the load factor had been
incorrectly calculated. The passengers who had
used the monthly passes and the condition of
the
vehicle
were
not
considered
while
determining the load factor. (Para 9)

The disciplinary authority placed exclusive
reliance on the aforesaid findings of the enquiry
3 All. Raj Kiran Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
875
officer while passing the impugned order dated
20.02.2016. The defence tendered by the
petitioner was consistently overlooked by all the
authorities below. The impugned orders passed
by the appellate authority dated 27.07.2016 and
the revising authority dated 07.03.2018 fare no
better. Hence, aforementioned orders are set
aside. (Para 10, 11, 14)

The matter is remitted the respondent No.5Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport
Corporation,
Aligarh
with
directions.
All
entitlements claimed by the petitioner shall be
determined after the final order is passed in
pursuance of this judgment. (Para 15, 16)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J.)

1. Shri Samir Sharma, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Ajay
Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appear
for
the
petitioner.
Learned
Standing
Counsel appears for the respondent No.1State and Shri Sarveshwar Lal Srivastava,
learned counsel appears for the respondents
No.2 to 6.

2. The petitioner has assailed the
order of termination of his services passed
by the disciplinary authority on 20.02.2016.

3. The facts in brief are. The
petitioner was a conductor in Uttar Pradesh
State
Road
Transport
Corporation
(UPSRTC). On 10.10.2005 the petitioner
was taking the bus from Delhi to
Farrukhabad. A surprise inspection of the
bus was conducted at Gola Kuan. The
inspecting party found that seven persons
who had boarded from Etah and were
travelling to Dhumari, were without tickets.
The aforesaid passengers claimed that they
worked for Delhi Transport Corporation
and were entitled to monthly free travel.
However, no documents were produced to
establish their entitlement to free passes.
Hence, the penalty was levied on the
aforesaid passengers.

4. A charge-sheet was drawn up on
22.10.2005 against the petitioner. The first
charge was that the petitioner had enabled
ticket-less
passengers
to
travel.
Alternatively the petitioner would have
charged the passengers at their destination
and pocketed the money. The gravamen of
the second charge was that the average load
factor of the bus from April to September,
2005 was much lower than the average load
factor of the depot.

5. Upon service of the said chargesheet the enquiry proceedings ensued. The
petitioner has tendered his defence before
the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer
found the petitioner guilty of both the
charges.

6. As seen above the first charge
was
comprised
of
two
alternative
arraignments
namely
corruption
or
negligence which are mutually exclusive.

7.
The
enquiry
officer
had
admittedly failed to make a specific
indictment on either of the two elements
which composed the first charge. The
enquiry report did not find whether the
petitioner was guilty of negligence or
corruption. Either the conductor is guilty of
negligence or he is guilty of corruption.
Indictment on one element of the said
charge
would
automatically
lead
to
exoneration on the other aspect of the
charge. In the facts of this case he cannot
be held guilty of both acts of misconduct
simultaneously. By omitting to make a
specific finding in regard to the charge, the
enquiry officer erred in law. In absence of
clear cut indictment and due to the broad
876 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
brushed finding of guilt, the petitioner was
disabled from tendering an effective
defence of his case and to state the
mitigative factors in his favour.

8. This issue assumes significance
in view of the fact that the inspecting party
had also found that the passengers had
passed themselves as Delhi Transport
Corporation
staff
and
had
claimed
entitlement to free travel.

9. The defence of the petitioner
against the second charge was that the load
factor had been incorrectly calculated. The
passengers who had used the monthly
passes and the condition of the vehicle
were not considered while determining the
load factor. The indictment made by the
enquiry officer on the second charge is
vitiated on account of non application of
mind to the defence of the petitioner in this
regard.

10.
The
disciplinary
authority
placed exclusive reliance on the aforesaid
findings of the enquiry officer while
passing
the
impugned
order
dated
20.02.2016. The defence tendered by the
petitioner was consistently overlooked by
all the authorities below.

11. The impugned orders passed by
the appellate authority dated 27.07.2016
and the revising authority dated 07.03.2018
fare no better. The aforesaid orders fail to
redeem the said illegalities committed by
the enquiry officer and the disciplinary
authority despite specific objections raised
by the petitioner.

12. According to the counter
affidavit filed by the respondents, the
petitioner was a habitual defaulter and had
been found guilty of taking ticketless
passengers on a number of occasions.
These facts aggravated the misconduct.

13. Admittedly, the petitioner was
not noticed on his past conduct before the
impugned order of punishment was passed.

14. In the wake of the preceding
discussion,
the
impugned
order
of
termination dated 20.02.2016 and the
orders passed by the appellate authority
dated
27.07.2016
and
the
revisional
authority dated 07.03.2018 are liable to be
set aside and are set aside.

15. The matter is remitted the
respondent No.5-Regional Manager, U.P.
State Road Transport Corporation, Aligarh
with the following directions:

I). The respondent No.5-Regional
Manager, U.P. State Road Transport
Corporation, Aligarh shall issue a fresh
notice to the petitioner consistent with the
observations made above. The show cause
notice may also contain the details of the
past record of punishments imposed on the
petitioner in case the same are proposed to
be relied upon against him. The petitioner
shall tender a reply to the said show cause
notice.

II). Upon receipt of the aforesaid
reply
the
respondent
No.5-Regional
Manager, U.P. State Road Transport
Corporation, Aligarh shall pass a fresh
order consistent with the observations made
in the order.

III).
The
exercise
shall
be
completed within a period of six months
from the date of receipt of a certified copy
of this order.

IV). It shall be open to the
respondents to remit the matter with a
direction to return specific findings in light
of the observations made on the basis of
3 All. Dr. Suman Jain Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
877
evidence already tendered in the earlier
enquiry proceedings.

16. All entitlements claimed by the
petitioner shall be determined after the final
order is passed in pursuance of this
judgment.

17. The writ petition is allowed to
the extent indicated above.
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 877
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ - A No. 14995 of 2024

Dr. Suman Jain ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Siddharth Khare, Sr. Adv.

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Hem Pratap Singh, Prem Narayan
Rai, Rahul Agarwal

A.
Service
Law
-
Selection
-
The
contention
that
for
the
purpose
of
selection committee there must be three
Experts of Palaeography has no legal
basis, since consideration for promotion
was for the post of Senior Professor
(Academic
Level
15)
at
AIHC
and
Archaeology and not for any specific topic
such as Palaeography. (Para 9)

It is the case of the petitioner that when she
faced the Selection Committee, she came to
know that three experts being its members were
not the experts of her subject i.e. Paleography,
therefore, according to her, the Selection
Committee was not constituted in terms of
above referred regulation, therefore, she has
approached this Court. (Para 4)

Petitioner was initially appointed as a Lecturer in
Palaeography in Department of AIHC and
Archaeology
under
a
Special
Assistant
Programme. Later on, she was promoted on the
post
of
Lecturer
(Senior
Scale)
in
the
Department of AIHC & Archaeology and in
similar manner she was promoted as a Reader,
Associate Professor, and Professor (Stage-V) in
the Department of AIHC and Archaeology and
not in a specific subject i.e. Palaeography. (Para
9)

In the curriculum of B.A. (Hons.) in AIHC and
Archaeology, there is one core subject i.e.
'Ancient Indian Palaeography and Epigraphy' in
its 6th Semester, therefore, in the entire course,
Palaeography is one of the core subject out of
20 core subjects. In the post graduation, out of
six
specialised
courses
only
one
is
of
'Palaeography and Epigraphy'. (Para 10, 11)

B. The petitioner has not come up with a
case that she is only taking classes in
subject Palaeography. (Para 12)

C. There is no doubt about petitioner's
expertise on subject Palaeography, but
such expertise does not require that in the
Selection Committee, three experts ought
to be in subject of Palaeography only. In
Clause
5
(IV)(iii)
of
notification
dated
18.07.2018 for Experts it is provided that
minimum of 10 years experience in the
subject/field, which has a wide connotation and
could not be restricted as contended by the
petitioner. All the three experts are specialized
in the field of Archaeology, which includes many
topics or subjects including 'Palaeography'.
(Para 13, 14)

D. In the Website of BHU, there are
details of petitioner, that she is working
in the Department of Ancient Indian
History, Culture and Archaeology. No
mention is made in respect of subject of
Palaeography, therefore, argument in
this respect has no ground. The three
Experts were qualified to be part of Selection
Committee and any objection to it is rejected.
(Para 15)