# Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corp., Agra v. Sri Bhuri Singh & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 5 ILRA 1452
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-04-19
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 10228 of 2023
- **Bench:** Alok Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/uttar-pradesh-state-road-transport-corp-agra-v-sri-bhuri-singh-anr-50119
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Labour Laws - Constitution of India, 1950
- Article - 20(2) & 226 - Industrial
Dispute Act, 1947 - Section 4(A) -
Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 114 &
114(g) : - Writ Petition - challenging the
impugned Award - Workman posted as Driver in
UPSRTC bus - charged with - stealing of diesel
from the vehicle - denied allegations - removed
from Services and his salary for the suspension
period was forfeited - Industrial dispute -
Labour court returned finding that there was no
material to implicate workman with the charge
of stealing diesel and hence order of removal
from service to be illegal and arbitrary
accordingly set aside the order with full back
wages - writ petition - UPSRTC takes plea that
they may be permitted to re-conduct inquiry -
Court observed that, - UPSRTC was under
mandate to conduct disciplinary proceedings
against employee in accordance with law and
for that purpose a charge was required to be
framed and all evidence and material which
were available to prove charge are disclosed to
delinquent employee and are also considered by
Inquiry Officer - In case there is material
available which has not been taken into
consideration by prosecuting authority, they
cannot be permitted to re-inquire into matter
and be given a chance to take into account
available material which was not considered in
previous inquiry - In case same is permitted it
will run counter to settled legal principle of
atrophoise acquit/atrophoise convict - held,
permitting the employer to proceed afresh with
the same inquiry would be hit by the principle of
'double jeopardy' - hence, no fresh proceeding
can be directed - writ petition dismissed. (Para -
14, 16, 17, 18)

Writ Petition Dismissed. (E-11)

## Text

1452 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

I. All Assistant/Deputy Registrar,
Firms, Societies and Chits in all districts of
the State of Uttar Pradesh, shall ensure that
every proceeding under Section 4(1) and
Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration
Act, 1860, shall be preceded by a
declaration from each member/applicant
disclosing their criminal antecedents.

II. No order shall be passed in
any proceeding under Section 4(1) of the
Societies Registration Act, 1860, in respect
of societies which are running educational
institutions
till
such
declarations
of
criminal antecedents are submitted by each
member on affidavit and placed in the
record.

III. Assistant/Deputy Registrars,
Firms, Societies and Chits in all districts of
the State of Uttar Pradesh, shall also call
for similar declarations on affidavits from
all office bearers of societies currently
running educational institutions in the State
of Uttar Pradesh and proceed as per law.

IV. Additional Chief Secretary,
Institutional Finance, Government of U.P.,
Lucknow, shall circulate this judgement to
all Assistant/Deputy Registrars, Firms,
Societies and Chits in all districts of the
State of Uttar Pradesh for ensuring
compliance of these directions.

V. Considering the importance of
the matter, Additional Chief Secretary,
Institutional Finance, Government of U.P.,
Lucknow, shall draw up a compliance
report and submit the same before the Chief
Secretary, Government of U.P., Lucknow
within six months so that the State is
alerted to the menace of criminal elements
usurping educational institutions and can
take appropriate legal measures to check
the same.

VI.
Failure
of
any
Assistant/Deputy
Registrars,
Firms,
Societies and Chits to comply with this
order will not only expose the official to
proceedings for violation of orders of this
Court but will also amount to a grave
misconduct
for
which
departmental
proceedings will be initiated against the
concerned official as per law.

20. Learned Chief Standing Counsel
shall communicate this order to Additional
Chief Secretary, Institutional Finance,
Government
of
U.P.,
Lucknow
for
necessary compliance.

21. The writ petition is dismissed.

22. The Court would like to
appreciate the assistance rendered by Shri
Sankalp Narain, learned counsel and Shri
Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel who
in the true fashion of high ethical standards
of the profession assisted the process of law
as officers of the Court with exemplary
integrity and scholarship.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 1452
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ-C No. 10228 of 2023

Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corp.,
Agra ...Petitioner
Versus
Sri Bhuri Singh & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sunil Kumar Misra

Counsel for the Respondents:
5 All. Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corp., Agra Vs. Sri Bhuri Singh & Anr.
1453
C.S.C., Sri Jamal Ahmad Khan

Labour Laws - Constitution of India, 1950
- Article - 20(2) & 226 - Industrial
Dispute Act, 1947 - Section 4(A) -
Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 114 &
114(g) : - Writ Petition - challenging the
impugned Award - Workman posted as Driver in
UPSRTC bus - charged with - stealing of diesel
from the vehicle - denied allegations - removed
from Services and his salary for the suspension
period was forfeited - Industrial dispute -
Labour court returned finding that there was no
material to implicate workman with the charge
of stealing diesel and hence order of removal
from service to be illegal and arbitrary
accordingly set aside the order with full back
wages - writ petition - UPSRTC takes plea that
they may be permitted to re-conduct inquiry -
Court observed that, - UPSRTC was under
mandate to conduct disciplinary proceedings
against employee in accordance with law and
for that purpose a charge was required to be
framed and all evidence and material which
were available to prove charge are disclosed to
delinquent employee and are also considered by
Inquiry Officer - In case there is material
available which has not been taken into
consideration by prosecuting authority, they
cannot be permitted to re-inquire into matter
and be given a chance to take into account
available material which was not considered in
previous inquiry - In case same is permitted it
will run counter to settled legal principle of
atrophoise acquit/atrophoise convict - held,
permitting the employer to proceed afresh with
the same inquiry would be hit by the principle of
'double jeopardy' - hence, no fresh proceeding
can be directed - writ petition dismissed. (Para -
14, 16, 17, 18)

Writ Petition Dismissed. (E-11)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Misra,
learned counsel for the petitioner as well
as Sri Jamal Ahmad Khan, learned
counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 -
workman.

2. By means of present writ petition
the petitioner - Uttar Pradesh State Road
Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred
to as "the UPSRTC"), has assailed the order
of the Labour Court, Agra passed in Claim
No. 79 of 2021, there by allowing the claim
of respondent no. 1 - workman, against the
order of removal from service dated
28.04.2015.

3. Brief conspectus of present case
necessary for adjudication of the case are
that respondent no. 1 on 05.07.2009, was
posed as Driver at Regional Workshop,
Agra and assigned duty at Store Truck No.
UTF-7775. Sri
V.K. Shukla,
Traffic
Superintendent fort Depot, submitted report
by letter no. 995, dated 17.07.2009,
disclosing that he alongwith his assistants
Vishambhar
Dayal,
Assistant
Traffic
Inspector, Shivkaran, Office Assistant on
Staff Car UP-32-6842 were coming from
Saunkh to Mathura and at village Nagala
Bhuria found that diesel was being
siphoned off from the diesel tank of Store
Truck No. UTF-7775 and filled in steel
Tanks and other plastic cans which was
total 16 liters by respondent no. 1.

4. Complaint was forwarded to
Regional Manager, UPSRTC Agra and
disciplinary proceedings were initiated
against respondent no. 1 in pursuance to
which he was suspended on 31.07.2009 and
charge sheet was also issued to him on the
same day. Assistant Regional Manager,
Mahanagar Depot, was appointed as
Inquiry Officer. An oral inquiry was
initiated
where
complainant
appeared
before the Committee and stated that on the
date of occurrence he had found respondent
no. 1 stealing diesel from the said vehicle.
Respondent no. 1 has cross examined the
complainant and Inquiry Officer concluded
the inquiry and submitted his report to the
1454 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Disciplinary Authority who issued show
cause notice dated 08.04.2015, to which
respondent no. 1 submitted his response
and final punishment order was passed on
28.04.2015 where respondent no. 1 was
removed from service and his salary for the
suspension period was forfeited.

5. Assailing the order of removal
from service, respondent no. 1 raised an
industrial dispute under the U.P. Industrial
Dispute Act, where proceedings were
initiated were validity of punishment order
was considered by the Deputy Labour
Commissioner, Agra under Section 4A of
the Industrial Dispute Act. The petitioner
filed written statement opposing the claim
of respondent no. 1 on 14.03.2022. The
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Agra had
set aside the punishment order dated
28.04.2015 and re-instated the petitioner
with full back wages.

6. The Labour Court had examined
the entire material on record as well as
statements made by the witnesses during
the said proceedings. The Tribunal was
persuaded by the fact that according to
complaint there were four employees at the
time of incident who were standing around
the vehicle in question and amongst four
people one of them was mechanic, fitter
and helper. Respondent no. 1 in his
response has submitted that they detected
some blockade in the pipe line and
therefore in order to remove the defect the
diesel tank was required to be emptied and
then the defect/air block was to be removed
and for which purpose the mechanic, fitter
and helper were present at the spot, and
denied that they were trying to steal diesel.

7. The Labour Court has allowed the
claim of respondent no. 1 and returned a
finding that they were not stealing diesel
but were removing air block in the diesel
pipe line for which mechanic and fitter
were present at the spot and were involved
in repair of the vehicle in question when
they
were
noticed
by
the
Traffic
Superintendent. Admittedly no further
investigation or material was produced by
the petitioner which could challenge the
stand taken by the workman. It has no were
been denied that the diesel tank was in
good order and there was no need for
removal of air block. In respect of
workman,
evidence
was
given
by
respondent no. 1 himself which is on
record, stating that they were repairing the
diesel tank which had developed an air
block and there was no material adduced by
the petitioner to repel the evidence given by
the workman.

8. The Labour Court has duly
considered the evidence and returned a
finding that charge against respondent no. 1
- workman has not been proved and
consequently, set aside the order of
removal from service with full back wages.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has vehemently submitted that the Tribunal
should have given another opportunity to
the employer -petitioner to proceed against
workman. Considering the fact that it has
been recorded by the Tribunal that there
were three other persons present on the spot
but the petitioner chose not to examine any
of
the
three
other
persons
during
disciplinary proceedings conducted by
them.

10. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

11. This Court is of the considered
view that before the Labour Court order of
removal
from
service
was
under
5 All. Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corp., Agra Vs. Sri Bhuri Singh & Anr.
1455
examination. While considering the order
of removal, the inquiry conducted by the
employer against the workman was duly
considered and found that there was
insufficient
material
adduced
by
the
employer to inflict penalty of removal from
service upon the workman. It could not be
proved that respondent no. 1 tried to steal
diesel from the tank of the vehicle in
question. The defense taken by the
respondent that he was attempting to
remove the defect of the truck which
developed air block and for which purpose
mechanic and fitter were present on the
spot,
was
duly
accepted
as
being
reasonable, and no challenge to the said
plea was raised by the petitioner so as to
disbelieve the workman. No reason or reply
has been submitted by the petitioner to
record a different finding then the one
which has been recorded by the Labour
Court.

12. This Court does not find any merit
in the arguments raised by the petitioner. It
is submitted that the Labour Court has
returned finding that there was no material
to implicate respondent no. 1 with the
charge of stealing diesel and hence has held
the order of removal from service to be
illegal and arbitrary and has accordingly set
aside the said order.

13. The counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that in light of the finding
recorded by the Labour court that there
were other witnesses present on the spot
who were never examined by the petitioner
who was prosecuting the respondent
workman, and in light of the said finding
the matter may be remitted to re-enquiry,
so that they can take an record fresh
evidence which was available but not
recorded during the proceedings against
respondent no. 1.

14. I have considered the submissions
of the petitioner. It is only at the behest of
employer that inquiry proceedings were
conducted
against
respondent
no.
1/employee where there were serious
allegations levelled against him. The
employer is mandated to proceed against
delinquent employee in accordance with
law and to give him full opportunity to
defend himself before recording any
finding holding him guilty of charges
levelled against him of misconduct. It is
duty of employer who is prosecuting the
employee to bring forthwith all the material
in support of charges levelled against him
and to inform the delinquent employee
about the said material so that he has full
opportunity of defend himself adequately.

15. In the present case, in the
proceedings the employee was found guilty
of misconduct and accordingly has been
awarded punishment/penalty of removal
from service. The Labour Court after
examining entire material on record and
findings adduced by the prosecution in
support of charges came to a conclusion
that charges against the employee are not
proved.

16. This Court has also examined the
findings recorded by the Labour Court and
found the same to be reasonable and there
is no infirmity in the findings returned by
the Labour Court. Prayer of the employer
that he may be permitted to re-conduct
inquiry so that they can record further
evidence which were not adduced in the
previous
inquiry.
Such
prayer
is
misconceived and is accordingly rejected
for the following reasons:

Firstly a person cannot get the
benefit of his own fault. The petitioner was
duty bound to present all the available
1456 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
material in support of the charges levelled
against delinquent employee and when
inquiry has concluded and Labour Court
has found that charges are not proved,
then the employee is exonerated of the
said charges. Permitting the employer to
proceed afresh with the same inquiry
would be hit by the principle of 'double
jeopardy' as it is well settled principle
that once a person has been acquitted or
is exonerated of the charges, no fresh
proceedings, trial or inquiry can be
commenced in relation to the said
charges. The said principle finds its roots
under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of
India and it is the principle of atrophoise
acquit/atrophoise convict as a person has
right not to be tried again for the same
offence for which he has been either
acquitted or convicted and same principle
applies even to disciplinary proceedings.

17. It is only where inquiry
proceedings are conducted in violation of
principles of natural justice, the employer
is permitted to proceed against employee
from the stage where there has been
infirmity in the proceedings noticed by
superior authority only to ensure that due
opportunity is given to the delinquent
employee and that he is not punished
unheard. The petitioner who is employer
of respondent no. 1, was under mandate
to
conduct
disciplinary
proceedings
against the employee in accordance with
law and for that purpose a charge was
required to be framed and all the
evidence
and
material
which
were
available
to
prove
the
charge
are
disclosed to the delinquent employee and
are also considered by the Inquiry
Officer. In case there is material available
which
has
not
been
taken
into
consideration
by
the
prosecuting
authority, they cannot be permitted to reinquire into the matter and be given a
chance to take into account the available
material which was not considered in the
previous
inquiry.
In
case
same
is
permitted it will run counter to settled
legal
principle
of
atrophoise
acquit/atrophoise convict, as has been
discussed above.

18. If there was some material
available with the employer and the same
was
not
deliberately
or
otherwise
adduced
in
the
disciplinary
proceedings/domestic inquiry then action
can be taken against persons responsible
for such act/omission but no fresh
proceedings can be directed to be
instituted to make good the deficient
material/evidence, in support of charges.

19. The other ground raised by
learned counsel for the petitioner is with
regard to back wages. It has been
submitted by counsel for the petitioner
that Tribunal has wrongly granted full
back wages to respondent no. 1 -
workman. this Court has examined the
judgment passed by the Tribunal and also
submissions made in the writ petition.
There is no reason for us to interfere in
the findings recorded by the Tribunal as
there is no material before this Court to
show that respondent no. 1 was gainfully
employed during period he was placed
under suspension or there is any other
circumstance which may compel this
Court to interfere in the findings recorded
by the Labour Court in this regard.

20. In the light of above discussion,
this Court does not find any illegality or
infirmity in the judgment of Labour
Court. Accordingly, the writ petition
being devoid of merits is dismissed.
----------
5 All. Rohit Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1457
(2023) 5 ILRA 1457
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

Writ-C No. 17496 of 2022

Rohit Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Amit Kumar Rai, Sri Salilendu Kumar
Upadhyay, Sri Abhishek Dwivedi, Sri H.N.
Singh (Sr. Adv.)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh

Civil Laws - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article - 226 - UP Gram Panchayat Raj
Act, 1947 - Sections 14, 95(g)(1) - Writ
Petition - Elected Gram Pradhan - certain
complaints - show Cause Notice - reply to the
notice within 15 days required - plea has been
taken by the petitioner that before sending any
reply he had a serious health condition and in
absence of any reply, District Magistrate passed
the impugned order - court finds that, in the
impugned order, there is a clear finding
recorded by the District Magistrate, that reply
has been duly submitted by the petitioner and
after considering the same, order impugned was
passed - in the last 40 years, the values have
gone down and now a litigants can go to any
extent to mislead the court - Maxim supressio
veri, expression faisi, i.e. suppression of truth is
equivalent to expression of falsehood, gets
attracted - held, A litigant, who attempts to
pollute stream of justice or who touches pure
fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not
entitled to any relief, interim or final - hence,
the petition deserves to be dismissed with a cost
of Rs. 25,000/- directions issued, accordingly.
(Para - 8,17, 18)

Writ Petition Dismissed. (E-11)
List of Cases cited:

1. Abhyudya Sanstha Vs U.O.I., (2011) 6 SCC
145,

2. Hari Narain Vs Badri Das AIR 1963 SC 1558,

3. G. Narayanaswamy Reddy Vs Govt. of
Karnataka (1991) 3 SCC 261,

4. Dalip Singh Vs St. of U.P., (2010) 2 SCC 114,

5. Moti Lal Songara Vs Prem Prakash @ Pappu &
anr.(2013) 9 SCC 199

6. Amar Singh Vs Union of India & ors., (2011)7
SCC 69,

7. Kishore Samrite Vs St. of Uttar Pradesh &
ors., (2013) 2 SCC 398.

8. ABCD Vs Union of India & ors. (2020 Vol. 2
SCC 52,

9. K.D. Sharma Vs Steel Authority of India
Limited & ors. (2008) 12 SCC 481,

10. Dhananjay Sharma Vs St. of Har. & ors.
(1995) 3 SCC 757,

11. A. Shanmugam Vs Ariya Kashatriya Rajakula
Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai
Sangam represented by its President & ors.
reported in (2012) 6 SCC 430,

12. Ramjas Foundation Vs U.O.I. (2010 vol. 14
SCC 38).

(Delivered by Hon'ble Prakash Padia, J.)

1. Heard Shri H.N. Singh, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Abhishek
Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for
state-respondents.

2. The petitioner has preferred the
present writ petition with the prayer to
quash the order dated 25/26.05.2022 passed