# Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corpn. Ltd., through the Regional Manager, Regional Office, Gorakhpur v. Rajendra Prasad & others

- **Citation:** (2006) 3 ILRA 1085
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-07-14
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36139 of 2003
- **Bench:** Rajes Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/uttar-pradesh-state-road-transport-corpn-ltd-through-the-regional-manager-40734
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art. 226-Dismissal
Order-challenge on the ground harsh
punishment-disproportionate-petitioner
held guilty for carrying 24 passengers
without ticket-snatched away the way
bill
from
Asstt.
Traffic
Inspectorthreatening
and
misbehaving
with
checking
officer-held-considering
the
conduct
of
employee-dismissal
from
service-proper.

Held: Para 15 & 16

In the present case, the respondent was
found guilty in carrying on the 24
passengers
without
ticket.
In
my
opinion, this conduct of the respondent
is sufficient to dismiss him from the
services in view of law laid down by the
Apex Court.

The issue involved in the present case is
squarely covered by the decisions of the
Apex Court in the case of Karnataka
SRTC Vs. B.S. Hullikatti (Supra), Regional
Manager, RSRTS Vs. Ghanshyam Sharma,
reported in 2002 (10) SCC, 330, U.P.
S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahendra Nath Tiwari and
1086 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
another, reported in 2006 (1) SCC, 118,
Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C., Etawah
Vs. Hoti Lal and another, reported in
2003 (3) SCC, 605.
Case law discussed:
2002 (10) SCC-330 relied on
2006 (1) SCC-118 relied on
2003 (3) SCC-605
2006 (1) SCC-118
2006 (108) FLR-584
2006 (108) FLR-696
1996 (72) FLR-316

## Text

3 All] Jagdish Singh V. The State of U.P. and others
1085
September, 2003 refusing to approve such
appointment.

25. Coming to the appeal of Sanjay
Kumar, it is not the case of the appellant
that any approval has been granted to the
selection of the appellant after completion
of selection process. Learned counsel for
Sanjay Kumar, appellant, has placed
reliance only on permission dated 5th
March, 2001 of the District Inspector of
Schools for publishing advertisement. We
have already held that the permission to
publish the advertisement is not same
thing as prior approval by the District
Inspector of Schools as contemplated
under Regulation 101. Moreover, after
first advertisement dated 8th March, 2001,
the Principal again issued advertisement
on 28th April, 2002 on the basis of which
selection has already been made and a
person has already been appointed who
has been represented before us by Sri R.S.
Misra,
Advocate,
Sri
R.S.
Misra,
Advocate has rightly pointed out that the
appellant is not entitled for any relief
since he has not even challenged the
selection of the selected candidate on the
basis of the advertisement dated 28th
April, 2002. There being no approval to
the selection of the appellant, Sanjay
Kumar, no error has been committed by
the learned single Judge in dismissing the
writ petition filed by Sanjay Kumar.

In view of the foregoing discussions,
both the appeals are dismissed. The
parties shall bear their own costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.07.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJES KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36139 of 2003

Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corpn.
Ltd.,
through
the Regional Manager,
Regional Office, Gorakhpur ...Petitioner
Versus
Rajendra Prasad & others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ajay Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri S.K. Srivastava
Sri J.P. Gupta
S.C.

Constitution of India, Art. 226-Dismissal
Order-challenge on the ground harsh
punishment-disproportionate-petitioner
held guilty for carrying 24 passengers
without ticket-snatched away the way
bill
from
Asstt.
Traffic
Inspectorthreatening
and
misbehaving
with
checking
officer-held-considering
the
conduct
of
employee-dismissal
from
service-proper.

Held: Para 15 & 16

In the present case, the respondent was
found guilty in carrying on the 24
passengers
without
ticket.
In
my
opinion, this conduct of the respondent
is sufficient to dismiss him from the
services in view of law laid down by the
Apex Court.

The issue involved in the present case is
squarely covered by the decisions of the
Apex Court in the case of Karnataka
SRTC Vs. B.S. Hullikatti (Supra), Regional
Manager, RSRTS Vs. Ghanshyam Sharma,
reported in 2002 (10) SCC, 330, U.P.
S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahendra Nath Tiwari and
1086 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
another, reported in 2006 (1) SCC, 118,
Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C., Etawah
Vs. Hoti Lal and another, reported in
2003 (3) SCC, 605.
Case law discussed:
2002 (10) SCC-330 relied on
2006 (1) SCC-118 relied on
2003 (3) SCC-605
2006 (1) SCC-118
2006 (108) FLR-584
2006 (108) FLR-696
1996 (72) FLR-316

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.)

1. This writ petition is directed
against the judgment and award dated
26.04.2002 passed by Presiding Officer
Labour Court, Gorakhpur, which was
published on 28.05.2003.

2. Brief facts of the case giving rise
to the present petition are that the
respondent no.1 was the employee of the
petitioner and was working on the post of
conductor attached with Deoria depot. He
has been dismissed from the service on
the ground that he was conductor of the
bus no.UAA-9643 on Lar Deoria route.
On 25.10.1994, Traffic Inspector Shri
S.N. Tripathi checked the aforesaid bus
near Salempur Bale and found that out of
30 passengers, 24 passengers were
travelling without ticket and from the
blank book a consolidated ticket of 24
passengers was prepared for Rs.72/-. The
entry of the said tickets was made in road
paper and the checking details were
mentioned and after writing the remark in
the road paper when Sri S.N. Singh,
Assistant Traffic Inspector was going to
put his signature, Rajendra Prasad,
respondent no.1 snatched the way-bill and
threatened for dire consequences and
misbehaved with the checking officer. In
the explanation, respondent no.1 stated
that there was no person without ticket
when the checking was made at Salempur
Bale. The passengers boarded the bus at
Salempur and the preparation of the ticket
was in process and the checking inspector
has illegally treated them without ticket.
He has refused to have given any
threatening and misbehaour. After the
enquiry, employee was found guilty and
the enquiry officer has given report on
28.03.1995 in which the allegation made
against the employee that with the view to
destroy the evidence, he had snatched the
way-bill to destroy the evidence and had
threatened with dire consequence and
misbehaved with the checking officer
could not be proved. However, rest of the
charges were found correct. Sri Ajay
Singh, Regional Manager in his order
dated 10.04.1995 has stated that the driver
of the bus Ram Singhasan Pandey in his
letter dated 26.10.1994 has stated that
when Rajendra Prasad was asked to sign
the way-bill, instead of putting the
signature he has snatched the way-bill. He
has also stated the same thing in his
statement dated 21.03.1993. It has also
been stated that on snatching, some of the
pages of way-bill were torned and taking
into account the seriousness of the
charges, dismissed the respondent no.1.
Apart from the amount given towards
subsistence allowance, rest of the amount
is forfeited. Labour Court vide order
dated 06.03.2000 has not found internal
enquiry proper and fair has provided
opportunity to the parties to prove the
charges.

3. Seven charges have been framed
against the employee: 1) carrying on the
passengers without ticket; 2) to cause loss
to the corporation; 3) he snatched away
the way-bill from Assistant Traffic
Inspector; 4) Non-performance of duty; 5)
Threatening to the checking officer and
3 All] U.P.S.R.T.C. V. Rajendra Prasad and another
1087
misbehaving; 6) Violation of orders of
Conduct Rules; 7) disobeydance of orders
and directions.

4. The Presiding Officer in its order
has observed that the enquiry officer has
held that snatching of the way-bill, and
threatened him for dire consequence to
the checking officer and misbehaviour
with the inspecting officer are not
established but the Regional Manager in
its order relying upon the statement of the
driver held that there was allegation of
snatching of way-bill, as a result of which
some of the papers have been torned.
Thus, it is established that the way-bill
was snatched but the threatening for dire
consequence and misbehaviour with the
officer are not established. It has been
observed that some of the papers might
have been torned as a result of exchange
of protest but it is not proved that the
same has been done to destroy the
evidence. The Presiding Officer however,
observed that the charge relating to the
travelling of 24 passengers without ticket
is
established.
However,
while
determining
the
quantum
of
the
punishment, it has been observed that the
charge has been partially not established
and the employer has suffered loss of
Rs.72/- only and the employee is
employed in the services since 1980 and
in the earlier checking he was never found
guilty. Thus, the removal from the service
has been held unjustified. It has been held
that two annual increments for two years
should be stopped by way of punishment.
It has also been held that the employee
may not be entitled for the back wages.

5. Heard Sri Ajay Singh, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.K.
Srivastava,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondent no.1.
6. It may be mentioned here that this
Court while entertaining the petition on
23.08.2003 stayed the operation of the
impugned award dated 26.04.2002.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the job of the conductor is
job of faith and trust. Thus, any action of
distrust on his part is not commendable
and the employee is liable to be
dismissed. He submitted that the charge
namely, that the respondent no.1 has
allowed the passengers to travel without
ticket has been established. This finding
of the Presiding Officer has not been
challenged by the respondent no.1 and has
become
final.
The
question
for
consideration is whether the charge
namely, that the respondent no.1 being a
conductor allowed 24 passengers out of
30 passengers in bus to travel without
ticket is such charge on which dismissal
of the employee is justified. He submitted
that in the case of U.P. S.R.T.C. Vs.
Mahendra Nath Tiwari and another,
reported in 2006 (1) SCC, 118, Regional
Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C., Etawah Vs.
Hoti Lal and another, reported in 2003
(3) SCC, 605, conductor was found
allowing the passengers to travel without
ticket held guilty and the dismissal of
such employee has been held justified.

8.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondent
no.1
submitted
that
the
punishment should be in proportion to the
charges. He submitted that the respondent
no.1 was working since 1980 and on the
earlier occasions, on inspection he was
never found guilty and in the present case
though he has been found guilty for the
charge of carrying 24 passengers without
ticket but keeping in view his past
conduct and revenue loss only to the
extent of Rs.72/- dismissal of the
1088 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
respondent no.1 from the service is harsh
and disproportionate to the charge and
thus, the order of the Presiding Officer is
wholly justified in setting aside the
dismissal of the respondent no.1 and
awarding the punishment to the extent of
stopping of two annual increments.

9. In the case Regional Manager,
U.P.S.R.T.C., Etawah Vs. Hoti Lal and
another (Supra), the employee was a bus
conductor and when he was on duty
Assistant Regional Manager checked the
bus and found 16 persons were travelling
without ticket. Even after realising fare
from the passenger no ticket was issued
up to the time of checking. When the
inspecting officers started checking, the
respondent hurriedly tried to issue tickets.
Old tickets were found in his possession
with the intent to use them again. The
employee was suspended and was finally
terminated. The order of the termination
was challenged in the High Court.
Learned Single Judge of the High Court
upheld
the
termination.
However,
Division Bench held that since the alleged
misconduct has caused loss to the State to
the extent of Rs.16/- only, the punishment
awarded was not commensurate with the
charge and thus, set aside the order of the
termination leaving it open to the
employer to award any punishment, other
than
removal
or
termination
or
compulsory retirement. The matter went
in appeal before the Apex Court. Apex
Court held as follows:

"It is not only the amount involved
but the mental set-up, the type of duty
performed
and
similar
relevant
circumstances which go into the decisionmaking
process
while
considering
whether the punishment is proportionate
or
disproportionate.
If
the
charged
employee holds a position of trust where
honesty
and
integrity
are
inbuilt
requirements of functioning, it would not
be proper to deal with the matter
leniently. Misconduct in such cases has to
be dealt with iron hands. Where the
person deals with public money or is
engaged in financial transactions or acts
in a fiduciary capacity, the highest degree
of integrity and trustworthiness is a must
and unexceptionable. Judged in that
background conclusions of the Division
Bench of the High Court do not appear to
be proper. We set aside the same and
restore order of the learned Single Judge
upholding the order of dismissal."

10. In the case of U.P. SRTC Vs.
Mahendra Nath Tiwari and another,
reported in 2006 (1) SCC, 118, it has
been held that the employee was bus
conductor. He was removed on the
allegation that he was found to be driving
the bus and no ticket was issued to a lone
passenger found in the bus and he had in
his possession used ticket. Presiding
Officer directed the reinstatement of the
respondent with continuity of service and
all the remaining dues but directed the
stoppage of his annual increment. Writ
petition filed by the U.P.S.R.T. has been
dismissed. On the Special Appeal being
filed, Apex Court held as follows:

"At the time of issuing notice, this
Court issued notice only limited to the
question of back wages that was awarded
to the respondent. Of course, when we
are hearing the appeal on grant of leave
or the petition for special leave to appeal
after notice, we are entitled to reopen the
appeal in its entirety and consider the
question of punishment and the legality
of the reinstatement ordered by the
Labour Court and affirmed by the High
3 All] U.P.S.R.T.C. V. Rajendra Prasad and another
1089
Court. This could be done by giving a
notice in that behalf to the respondent
and giving him an opportunity of being
heard. But for the purpose of this case
and at this distance of time, we do not
think that it is necessary to do so.
Therefore, somewhat reluctantly, we
refrain from adopting that course,
though, according to us, this is a fit case
where neither the Labour Court nor the
High Court had any justification in
interfering with the order removing the
respondent from service. The conduct of
the respondent as a conductor of U.P.
SRTC was totally irresponsible and
clearly constituted misconduct on his
part
deserving
the
maximum
punishment.
We have no hesitation in coming to
the conclusion that the respondent did
not deserve the award of back wages to
him. In fact, he must consider himself
lucky to have been reinstated and that we
are
not
interfering
with
that
reinstatement. When a conductor drives
a bus for which he is not authorized, he
is endangering the public as well as the
property of his employer. This by itself is
a serious misconduct justifying dismissal
of a conductor. Similarly, the fact that
one passenger was found travelling and
had not been issued a ticket for that
journey, constitutes a grave charge
against a conductor who is really in a
position of trust as far as the employer
Corporation is concerned. He is dutybound to collect the fare from every
passenger on behalf of his employer.
Same is the position regarding the
unexplained twelve used tickets found in
his possession. That prima facie suggest
that there is room to doubt the honesty of
the respondent. The charges are such
that they show a betrayal of the trust
placed on the conductor by the employer
and that the employee endangered an
asset of the Corporation in addition to
endangering the lives of the other users
of the road.
It is a misconception to consider
that the amount involved in an offence
of this nature has a material bearing,
while considering whether there has
been misconduct on the part of an
employee. It may be relevant in a
criminal prosecution when considering
the quantum of punishment to be
imposed. When a person like the
conductor of a bus, who has the
obligation to make proper collection of
the charges from the passengers on
issuing tickets to them, is found to have
passengers in the bus, even if it be only
one, to whom he had not issued a ticket,
it clearly amounts to a clear violation of
the duty imposed on him. It is really a
breach of the duty cast on the conductor
who is acting on behalf of the employer.
Whether it be one passenger or ten
passengers it would make no difference
in principle in the absence of any
explanation in that behalf. It was simply
the case of a conductor who had violated
the regulations or the terms of his
employment
and
had
betrayed
his
employer, which, in any event, is a grave
misconduct justifying a dismissal."

11. In the case of Karnataka SRTC
Vs. B.S. Hullikatti, reported in 2001 (2)
SCC 574, it was held by the Apex Court
that it is misplaced sympathy by courts in
awarding lesser punishments where on
checking it is found that the bus
conductors have either not issued tickets
to a large number of passengers, though
they should have, or have issued tickets of
a lower denomination knowing fully well
the correct fare to be charged. It is the
responsibility of the bus conductors to
1090 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
collect the bus fare from the passengers
and
deposit
the
same
with
the
Corporation. They act in a fiduciary
capacity and it would be a case of gross
misconduct if knowingly they do not
collect any fare or the correct amount of
fare. It was finally held that the order of
dismissal should not have been set aside.

12. The aforesaid view has been
reiterated by three-Judge Bench of the
Apex Court the in the case of Regional
Manager, RSRTS Vs. Ghanshyam
Sharma, reported in 2002 (10) SCC,
330 wherein in addition to what stated in
the case of Karnataka SRTC Vs.
B.S.Hullikatti
(Supra)
Apex
Court
further observed that the proved acts
amount to either a case of dishonesty or of
gross negligence, and bus conductors who
by their actions or inactions cause
financial loss to the corporations are not
fit to be retained in service.

13. Learned counsel for the
respondent no.1 further submitted that the
findings of the court below is finding of
fact and should not be interfered. In
support of his contention, he relied upon
decisions in the case of U.P. State Road
Transport Corporation and others Vs.
Mahesh Kumar Mishra and others,
reported in 2000 (85) FLR, 291, B.C.
Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and
others, reported in 1996 (72) FLR, 316,
Management of Teok Tea Estate Vs.
Presiding
Officer,
Labour
Court,
Dibrugarh and another, reported in
2006 (108) FLR, 696 (Gauhati High
Court), Hombe Gowda Edn, Trust and
another Vs. State of Karnataka and
others, reported in 2006 (108) FLR,
584.

14. In my opinion, decisions cited
by learned counsel for the respondent
no.1 are not applicable to the present case.
None of the case relates to the bus
conductors in which the charge of
carrying the passengers without ticket is
found.
While
the
case
referred
hereinabove namely, in the case of
U.P.S.R.T.C.
Vs.
Mahendra
Nath
Tiwari and another, reported in 2006
(1) SCC, 118, Regional Manager,
U.P.S.R.T.C., Etawah Vs. Hoti Lal and
another, reported in 2003 (3) SCC, 605
relates to the case of the bus conductors,
in which on checking it was found that the
bus
conductor
was
carrying
the
passengers without ticket. Thus, it is not
necessary to deal every individual case.

15. In the present case, the
respondent was found guilty in carrying
on the 24 passengers without ticket. In my
opinion, this conduct of the respondent is
sufficient to dismiss him from the services
in view of law laid down by the Apex
Court.

16. The issue involved in the present
case is squarely covered by the decisions
of the Apex Court in the case of
Karnataka SRTC Vs. B.S.Hullikatti
(Supra), Regional Manager, RSRTS
Vs. Ghanshyam Sharma, reported in
2002 (10) SCC, 330, U.P. S.R.T.C. Vs.
Mahendra Nath Tiwari and another,
reported in 2006 (1) SCC, 118, Regional
Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C., Etawah Vs.
Hoti Lal and another, reported in 2003
(3) SCC, 605.

17. For the reasons stated above,
judgment and award dated 26.04.2002
passed by the respondent no.2, Presiding
Officer Labour Court, Gorakhpur is set
3 All] U.P.S.R.T.C. V. Rajendra Prasad and another
1091
aside and the dismissal of the respondent
no.1 is restored.

In the result, writ petition is allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.07.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S. RAFAT ALAN, J.
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38598 of 2006

Harsh Kumar Singh

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri H.N. Shukla
Sri R.R. Shukla
Sri M.K. Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Constitution of India, Art. 226-Service
Law-Suspension Order-on allegationswhile working as Tehsildar-fraudulently
allotted 800 Bighas agricultural land to
different person-by exercising power
under
Section
195
and
197
of
U.P.Z.A.L.R.
Act-Power
exercised
negligently or recklessly in order to
confer undue favour on a person-such
judicial or Quasi Judicial authority-can
be subjected to disciplinary enquirycontention regarding approval given by
the
petitioner
based
upon
the
recommendations of other authoritieswhich has been approved by the D.M.-
held-not a stage where the correctness
of charge can be looked into-suspension
order warrant no interference-However
disciplinary proceeding be concluded
within 6 months.

Held: Para 7 and 9

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner
further
contended
that
even
the
allegation of fraudulent act against the
petitioner is not correct and there is
material on record to show that the land
settlement
was
approved
by
the
petitioner
pursuant
to
the
recommendation of the other authorities
and the said action was also approved by
the Sub Divisional Magistrate. In our
view, it is not a stage where correctness
of the charges can be looked into, since
the correctness of the charge is subject
matter of departmental enquiry and any
observation made by this Court, on this
issue at this stage, would prejudice the
interest
of
the
parties
in
the
contemplated departmental enquiry.

In view of the aforesaid discussions, we
are of the view that the impugned order
of suspension does not warrant any
interference at this stage. However, we
are
also
of
the
view
that
the
departmental proceeding should not be
prolonged
unnecessarily
and
the
authorities
should
endeavour
to
conclude the departmental proceeding
expeditiously and within a reasonable
time. A government servant cannot be
allowed to remain under suspension for
an indefinite period as it causes not only
loss of morale to such government
servant but also causes wastage of
public money and time. We, therefore,
direct the respondents to conclude the
departmental proceeding against the
petitioner
expeditiously,
preferably,
within a period of six months from the
date of production of a certified copy of
this order. It is also made clear that in
case the respondents find that the
departmental proceeding can not be
concluded before the aforesaid time
despite co-operation rendered by the
petitioner, it is open to the respondents
to
re-consider
the
question
of
continuance of the suspension of the
petitioner.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1993 SC-1478
1994 (3) SCC-357
1991 RD (HC)-427