# Rishi Muni Giri v. The Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C. and others

- **Citation:** (2003) 2 ILRA 538
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-04-22
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32183 of 2001
- **Bench:** S.K. Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rishi-muni-giri-v-the-regional-manager-u-p-s-r-t-c-and-others-40169
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India-Article
226-
removal from service-Removal-serious
lapses in discharge of duty- findings of
enquiry
officer
and
disciplinary
authority-no
perversity
or
mistake
found- no interference called for.

Held- Para 10
In view of the aforesaid analysis it is
clear that petitioner has been punished
on the charge of serious lapses on his
part
in
discharge
of
duty.
The
explanation given by him has not been
found
to
be
substantiated
by
any
material and there being a finding on a
question of fact the court do not find any
perversity or apparent mistake in the
findings and conclusions arrived at by
the enquiry officer or the disciplinary
authority and thus petitioner is not
entitled to get any relief from this Court

## Text

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
538
in the third enquiry is nothing but
outcome of malice and vindictive attitude
causing harassment of the employee. This
also appears from the recommendation of
the
enquiry
report
dated
2.5.1995
extracted above.

10. For all the aforesaid reasons and
the provisions of law discussed above, the
writ petition succeeds and is allowed with
costs of Rs.2000/- to be recovered from
Sri Dharam Singh, the then Upper
Commissioner (Prashashan) Vyapar Kar,
U.P. Lucknow and paid to the petitioner
as arrears of land revenue within two
months. The District Magistrate will
submit compliance report to this Court
immediately thereafter.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.4.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.K. SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32183 of 2001

Rishi Muni Giri

...Petitioner
Versus
The Regional Manager, U.P. State Road
Transport Corporation and others
 ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.N. Singh
Sri P. Dwivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Sameer Sharma

Constitution
of
India-Article
226-
removal from service-Removal-serious
lapses in discharge of duty- findings of
enquiry
officer
and
disciplinary
authority-no
perversity
or
mistake
found- no interference called for.

Held- Para 10
In view of the aforesaid analysis it is
clear that petitioner has been punished
on the charge of serious lapses on his
part
in
discharge
of
duty.
The
explanation given by him has not been
found
to
be
substantiated
by
any
material and there being a finding on a
question of fact the court do not find any
perversity or apparent mistake in the
findings and conclusions arrived at by
the enquiry officer or the disciplinary
authority and thus petitioner is not
entitled to get any relief from this Court

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.K. Singh, J.)

1. Challenge in this petition are the
orders dated 31.7.1998 (annexure no. 5 to
the writ petition) 11.10.2000 (annexure
no. 6 to the writ petition) and 30.5.2001
(annexure no. 7 to the writ petition),
passed by the respondents no. 1, 2 and 3
respectively.
By
the
order
dated
31.7.1998, referred above, the disciplinary
authority removed the petitioner from
service, which has been confirmed in
appeal and revision by the other two
orders, referred above.

2. For the purpose of decision brief
facts can be summarized thus. The
petitioner had been working as conductor
in
the U.P.
State
Road
Transport
Corporation, herein after referred to as the
Corporation. Petitioner claims that he was
allotted duty on 22.9.1996 for running
with the bus from Lalganj to Delhi and
Delhi to Lalganj and thereafter from
Bahraich to Lalganj and to Allahabad and
thus
after
completing
three
days
continuous duty petitioner was to take rest
at his quarter as he was not feeling well
and was suffering with serious headache.
It is said that although the petitioner was
to be allowed double duty rest but on
account of non availability of any
conductor to proceed with the bus from
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Rishi Muni Giri V. The Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C. and others
539
Lalganj-Allahabad-Faizabad-Bahraich, on
25.9.1996 at about 4.30 P.M. he was
forced to go to Allahabad. Petitioner
showed his inability to do the duty but he
was assured that some other conductor
will be provided from Pratapgarh but as
no body was available petitioner has to
continue in the bus. It is stated that there
were 59 passengers in the bus when it
started from Pratapgarh to Allahabad but
as there was severe headache and physical
ailment petitioner committed mistake in
issuing tickets to the passengers. The bus
appears to have been checked near
Mauaima at 6.15 P.M. by the checking
staff of the Corporation and on finding
certain irregularities checking report was
prepared and was submitted to the
Assistant Regional Manager, Pratapgarh
Depot. Thereafter petitioner was placed
under suspension. Charge sheet was
issued to him. Enquiry proceeded. On
submission of the enquiry report the
disciplinary authority proceeded to pass
the order of petitioner's removal from
service which stood confirmed in appeal
and revision in the higher forum. It is
these orders which are under challenge
before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that petitioner has not committed
any financial irregularity as it is a case of
certain incorrect entry in the way bill and
not issuing proper tickets and thus the
impugned order of removal from service
cannot
be
sustained.
It
is
further
submitted that the explanation given by
the petitioner has not been properly
considered and examined either by the
enquiry officer or by the disciplinary
authority
and
even
by
the
appellate/revisional
authority
and,
therefore, on the facts, the finding of
misconduct on the part of the petitioner is
totally
perverse.
It
is
argued
that
petitioner
has
established
that
he
discharged continuous duty for about
three days and thus on the date of incident
he was entitled for double duty rest but he
was compelled to join the bus from
Lalganj in the express bus service i.e.
Lalganj-Pratapgarh-
Bahraich
on
the
pretext that in Pratapgarh some other
conductor will be provided. Although the
petitioner was suffering from severe
mental headache which he informed to the
staff who came to the petitioner to compel
him to join the bus but even then
petitioner was compelled to proceed for
duty and, therefore, on account of his
mental disbalance and physical ailment,
irregularity in the way bill and issuing the
ticket happened. It is submitted that all
these aspects have not been taken into
account and all the authorities without
assigning reason to disagree with the
explanation given by the petitioner in an
arbitrary manner agreed to the findings of
the enquiry officer and has passed the
impugned order. In support of the
submission that if the decision by the
disciplinary authority and its confirmation
by the higher authority is without
assigning any reason to disagree with the
explanation of the petitioner, it amounts
to a non speaking order, which is to be
termed to be in violation of principles of
natural justice, reliance has been placed
on decisions given in the case of Prem
Prakash Misra Vs. U.P. State Road
Transport Corporation and others,
(1994) 2 U.P.L.B.E.C. 1047 and Smt.
Kamlesh Saxena Vs. U.P. Secondary
Education
Service
Commission,
Allahabad
and
others,
(1999)
3
U.P.L.B.E.C. 2133. In support of the
submission that for technical omission of
not entering some of the tickets in the way
bill punishment of removal from service
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
540
is not justified, reliance has been placed
on the case of Ram Babu Gupta Vs.
U.P.S.R.T.C. & others reported in
(1999) 3 U.P.L.B.E.C. 2175.

4. In response to the aforesaid
submission learned counsel for the
respondents submits that the petitioner
has
been
charged
for
the
serious
misconduct
leading
to
financial
irregularity as he has taken money from
all the passengers who were traveling
from Pratapgarh to Allahabad, but neither
tickets have been issued in that respect
nor there is proper entry in the way bill. It
is argued that on the clear finding as has
been recorded by the enquiry officer in
which the charges against the petitioner
have
been
proved
the
disciplinary
authority has rightly passed the order of
removal agreeing with the findings given
by the enquiry officer which has been
rightly
confirmed
by
the
higher
authorities. It is submitted that if the
disciplinary authority and the further
higher forum after noticing the substance
of the enquiry report and the reply of the
petitioner, have chosen to record a finding
that explanation of the petitioner is not
sufficient as there is no satisfactory
material/ fact to disagree with the report
of the enquiry officer, no further reasons
are required to be given and it cannot be
said to be a case of passing a non
speaking order as has been submitted by
the learned counsel for the petitioner. In
support of the aforesaid submission
learned counsel for the respondents has
placed reliance on the decision given in
the case of Ram Kumar Vs. State of
Haryana reported in AIR 1987 SC 2043
and
Dr.
J.N.
Banavalikar
Vs.
Municipal Corporation of Delhi and
another reported in AIR 1996 SC 326. It
is further argued that petitioner has not
discharged the burden of establishing his
stand of his ailment and the mental
condition so that to accept the plea of
lapses having been occasioned on account
of his mental disbalance. It is argued that
in view of the nature of the defence of the
petitioner burden to prove his stand
heavily lay on him for which no evidence
whatsoever was given for which reliance
has been placed on a decision given in the
case of Orissa Mining Corporation and
another Vs. Ananda Chandra Prusty,
1997 (75) FLR 100. It is pointed out that
this Court as well as the Apex Court has
not interfered in respect to the quantum of
punishment which is claimed by the
petitioner to be disproportionate in the
matter where charges of corruption have
been found to be proved, reliance has
been placed on a decision given by the
Apex Court in the case of Municipal
Committee, Bahadurgarh Vs. Krishnan
Behari and others, JT 1996 (3) S.C. 96
and also on the decision given by this
Court in the case of Sri Kishan Sharma
Vs.
Assistant
Regional
Manager,
U.P.S.R.T.C. and others in writ petition
no. 9102 of 1980 and in the case of
Ashok Kumar Vs. U.P. State Road
Transport Corporation and others in
writ petition no. 27968 of 1992.

5. In view of the aforesaid
submission as has come from both sides
pleadings as existed have been examined.

6. There appears to be no dispute
about the fact that the petitioner himself
admits that some irregularity and lapses
has occasioned in relation to the facts as
has been reported by checking staff. The
charge against the petitioner is that 59
passengers
were
traveling
from
Pratapgarh to Allahabad and none of them
were issued tickets and there was no
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Rishi Muni Giri V. The Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C. and others
541
proper entry in the way bill. Petitioner has
taken a stand that on account of
continuous duty for three days, on the
date of incident he was not in a position to
undertake further duty as he was suffering
from severe mental headache and he was
not in a fit mental state but he was
compelled by the staff to proceed with the
bus from Lalganj to Pratapgarh where
other Conductor was to be provided but
on account of non availability of other
Conductor he has to continue up to
Allahabad. It is in the light of the
aforesaid assurance he initially proceeded.
Thus so far the charge of the irregularity
is concerned it was not required to be
proved as most of the facts relating to
irregularity in respect to non issuance of
the tickets, incomplete way bill and
issuance of some tickets of wrong
destination etc. have been admitted by the
petitioner himself.

7. In view of the aforesaid, the only
question which is to be examined, on
which attention of this Court is to be
focused is, in respect to correctness of the
findings rejecting the defence taken by the
petitioner i.e. he being not in fit mental
condition, suffering from physical ailment
i.e. severe mental headache etc. Although
the question on which if the finding
comes in favour of the petitioner he can
be said to be entitled to get relief, is a
pure question of fact but in the light of the
submission made by the learned counsel
for the petitioner this aspect is also
examined. On a perusal of the enquiry
officer's report it is clear that the Traffic
Inspector, who has checked the bus has
clearly stated that petitioner was in a fit
mental condition and was totally balanced
at the time of checking. The statement in
this respect can be referred at this stage:

"iz'u& D;k izkFkhZ psfdax ds le; larqfyr Fkk A
mRrj& gekjs fglkc ls larqfyr Fks A"

8. Further examination of the
enquiry officer's report indicates that the
petitioner has given his statement in
which he has only reiterated his stand that
he was not in a fit mental condition but he
has not adduced any supporting and
corroborative evidence in respect to his
theory of physical ailment leading to such
a situation which resulted in such a major
lapse. It has been admitted by the
petitioner that when he was lying in his
quarter
he
was
compelled
by
the
Corporation staff namely Vishwanath, a
driver; Ramnath, Checking Clerk and
another driver Mohd. Rashid who came to
the petitioner to whom the petitioner
informed that he is not well as he took the
medicine for his severe mental headache.
Although any one out of the aforesaid
staff or any other person to whom the
petitioner informed about his ailment, on
their examination could have been able to
substantiate the factum of ailment of the
petitioner, but in spite of the query having
been made by the enquiry officer that
whether he intends to lead any evidence
the petitioner flatly stated that he is not
ready to lead any evidence. The relevant
facts as are contained in the enquiry
report which are relevant in this context
will be useful to be quoted here:

"iz'u& vki dks bl lEcU/k esa fdlh ls vkSj dqN dguk gS
rFkk dksbZ lk{; izLrqr djuk gS A
mRrj& Jheku th fdlh ls dqN ugha iwNuk gS vkSj u gh
dksbZ lk{; gh izLrqr djuk gS A"

9. In view of the aforesaid, it is clear
that the petitioner has not adduced any
evidence either oral or documentary to
substantiate his version of ailment which
was of such a nature that he being well
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
542
versed with the duty of the conductor has
committed very basic mistakes which he
claims to be innocuous in nature i.e. no
entry in way bill, not issuing tickets after
taking
money
from
59
passengers.
Needless to say that the burden is always
first on the department/employer of
proving charges but at the same time in
view of the nature of the allegations and
the explanation so offered by the charged
employee the proof is to be insisted from
the party who is in position to give
positive evidence being in his control. As
explanation offered by the petitioner in
the light of defence could have been
proved by some positive evidence, no
negative evidence can be expected from
the employer. So far the case in hand is
concerned the departmental witness says
that the petitioner was in a fit mental
condition at the time of checking then
what proof or evidence in this respect
could be expected from them and on the
other hand as the petitioner has stated to
be suffering from mental disbalance and
physical ailment for which he has stated
that it is in the full knowledge of the three
of the staff of the Corporation whose
name have also been given as referred
above but in spite of the opportunity by
the enquiry officer petitioner has not
chosen to examine any of the staff. It has
also come in the order of the disciplinary
authority that petitioner has stated in his
reply that he has not been given
opportunity to cross examine the Traffic
Inspector and the bus driver but the
disciplinary
authority
has
rightly
concluded that the petitioner himself has
stated that he need not to examine/cross
examine any body. It also appears from
the report of the enquiry officer that
charge against the petitioner is that he is
responsible for cancellation of the bus
service from Allahabad to Bahraich as
after reaching Allahabad he did not turn
up for which the driver has also reported
in writing. In view of the aforesaid it
appears that the disciplinary authority
after
taking
into
consideration
the
findings of the enquiry officer after
noticing them in detail and reply as has
been submitted by the petitioner, after
assigning reason that the explanation of
the petitioner has not been found to be
sufficient has confirmed the proposed
punishment and removed the petitioner
from service. The appellate authority and
the revisional authority have also agreed
with the findings of the disciplinary
authority.
Appellate
authority
has
mentioned the matter in detail. Full facts
have been mentioned, the explanation of
the petitioner have been mentioned,
findings of the enquiry officer have been
referred and thereafter the agreement with
the decision of the disciplinary authority
has been recorded and, therefore, it cannot
be said to be a case of non application of
the mind leading to violation of principles
of natural justice. Same is the situation
with the order of the revisional authority.
Although the revisional authority has not
mentioned facts in great detail as has been
done by the two authorities but on a
reading of the order it is clear that he was
conscious of all the facts and he has
rightly observed relevant aspect of the
matter that during the course of the
enquiry petitioner has just reiterated his
stand of ailment but has not adduced any
evidence in support thereof and, therefore,
in the absence of any evidence that cannot
be accepted. In view of the aforesaid
examination it is clear that on the facts of
the present case it cannot be said that the
orders passed by either of the authority
suffer from non application of the mind,
for the reason of there being no reason. In
view of the aforesaid, decisions as has
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Sheetala Prasad Singh and others V. State of U.P. and others
543
been referred by the learned counsel for
the petitioner having no application to the
present case are of no assistance to him.
On the other hand decisions as has been
referred by the learned counsel for the
respondents
that
in
the
event
the
disciplinary
authority
refers
to
the
findings of the enquiry officer and then
proceeds to record a reason that there is
nothing to discard the reasonings and the
findings and to disagree with the same
then it is a clear case of application of
mind and no further reiteration of all the
facts an independent reason is required. It
has been stated by the Apex Court that it
is only in those cases where the fresh
enquiry is
to be directed
or the
disciplinary authority intends to disagree
with
the
findings
then
only
the
independent reasonings are required.

10. In view of the aforesaid analysis
it is clear that petitioner has been
punished on the charge of serious lapses
on his part in discharge of duty. The
explanation given by him has not been
found to be substantiated by any material
and there being a finding on a question of
fact the court do not find any perversity or
apparent mistake in the findings and
conclusions arrived at by the enquiry
officer or the disciplinary authority and
thus petitioner is not entitled to get any
relief from this Court.

11. For the reasons recorded above
writ petition fails and is dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.7.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE R.S. TRIPATHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9052 of 2001

Sheetala Prasad Singh and others

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Ashok Khare
Sri A.K. Singh
Sri B.P. Yadav
Sri B.P. Singh
Sri R.S. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Education & Service - U.P. Homeopathy
Medical Colleges Acquisition and Misc.
Provisions
Act
1981,
Sec
4
(2)-
amalgamation- of two or more colleges-
State Government issued UP Ordinance
No. 4 of 2001 for such purpose- amounts
to
policy
decision-
should
not
be
interfered.

W.P. No. 34022 of 2002 XL-IIT Forum &
others Vs. State of U.P. & others and
W.P. No. 43985 of 1977 Kanpur Aloo
Arhati Association & another Vs. State of
U.P. & others

Held- Para 9 & 10

A perusal of section 4 (2) of the 1981 Act
shows that the State Government has
power to amalgamate two or more
colleges
and
transfer
students
and
teachers from one college to another.
The U.P. Ordinance no. 4 of 2001
Annexure-2 to the writ petition confers
further power for such transfer and
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in