Ram Pratap Mishra vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 3320 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Ram Pratap Mishra vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 5 August, 2025

Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:130922
 
Reserved on : 24.07.2025
 
Delivered on : 05.08.2025
 
Court No. - 5 
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 30520 of 2016 
 
Petitioner :- Ram Pratap Mishra 
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others 
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Ajay Kumar Srivastava,Ashok Khare 
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sunil Kumar Misra
 
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. 
 

1. Heard Sri Sameer Sharma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Sunil Kumar Misra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5 and learned Standing Counsel for State.

2. The petitioner was appointed as a conductor in U.P. State Road Transportation Corporation at Badshahpur Depot, Jaunpur in the year 1989 on compassionate basis.

3. In the paragraph No. 4 of writ petition petitioner has declared that his work and conduct was fully satisfactory, however, the aforesaid declaration is contrary to materials brought on record by respondent Corporation by way of filing supplementary affidavit 03.07.2023 that between 1991 to 2013 as many as 22 proceedings were initiated and at least more than 15 occasions he was awarded punishment including censure, warning for breach of good conduct, withholding of good conduct allowance of one month was forfeited with warning, deduction of Rs.100 with warning, reverted to lower grade for five years and remaining salary of suspension period, two years increments were also withheld et.c.

4. The aforesaid affidavit was replied by way of supplementary rejoinder affidavit dated 01.08.2023 and contents of paragraph No.4 are reproduced hereinafter :-

"4. That the contents of paragraph no. 4 of the Supplementary Counter Affidavit are not admitted as stated and hence denied. The answering respondents are put to strict proof of the averments made in the paragraph under reply. In any case, the deponent has been advised to state that an employee cannot be punished twice for the misconduct. Hence, any past misconduct / misconducts, for which the petitioner had already been punished cannot same be the sole basis to justify the impugned punishment order in case there was no evidence in support of the charges levelled against the petitioner."

5. The aforesaid declaration as well as above referred reply being vague, may be a ground to dismiss this writ petition as threshold since the petitioner has made misleading declaration in the writ petition. The petitioner's conduct was not satisfactory and has suffered repeated punishment.

6. At this stage, the Court has also considered that at the commencement of argument, an objection was raised by learned counsel for respondent that petitioner has a liberty to approach the labour Court, which would be a Competent Court to consider whether the departmental proceedings was fair or not.

7. However, learned Senior Counsel has made a categorical statement on instructions that matter be decided on merit and petitioner does not want to relegate to the alternative remedy.

8. Learned counsel for respondent also placed reliance on the judgment passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Tej Bahadur Singh Vs. The State of U.P. and others, 2023:AHC:212694 and Rajit Ram Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and 5 others, Writ-A No.254 of 2021, wherein petitioner was granted liberty to approach under the provisions of U.P. Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, despite one of writ petition was pending for many years. It is also not much under dispute that proved charges of carrying passengers without tickets would warrant punishment of dismissal.

9. Learned Senior Counsel has referred that the inspection conducted on 02.03.2014 was not proper. The Inspection Report was submitted after 4 days. The ETM machine was not properly working and no passenger was found without ticket. Only on assumption that when the bus in which petitioner was conductor when signalled to stop for inspection by inspection squad, it was intentionally stopped after some distance and said time was utilised to issue 3 tickets. The Inspection Report was not proved and it was a case of no evidence.

10. Par Contra, learned counsel for respondent has submitted that due process was followed. The charge-sheet was submitted to which the petitioner has submitted reply and after considering the material on record it was held that once ETM machine was working properly there was no occasion to issue ticket on B.T. book. The relevant part of enquiry report dated 02.03.2014 is reproduced hereinafter :-

"विषयः निरीक्षण हेतु संकेत दिये जाने पर बस आगे बढवाकर तीन टिकट जारी करने के सम्बन्ध में:

महोदय,

पाश्वार्कित विवरण के अनुसार संचालित बस को निरीक्षक हेतु रूकने का संकेत दिया गया परिचालक द्वारा बस आगे बढवा कर एक टिकट नारायणपुर से जाला, एक टिकट नारायनुपर से अदालहाट तथा एक टिकट नारायणपुर से रार्बट्सगंज का जारी कर दिया गया जिसका प्रशमन टिकट संख्या पीवाईबी 057 58 66 67 एवं 68 पर रू0 50000 +90.00 + 500.00 बराबर 1090.00 का जारी किया गया जिसे परिचालक से जमा कराया जाय।

निरीक्षण मे घोर अनियमितता यह पायी गयी कि जो टिकट वाराणसी से ई००टी०एम० बुंक पर बनये गये थे तथा ई०टी० द्वारा भी वाराणसी से बनये गये तथा नरायनपुर से ई०टी०एम० द्वारा बनाये गये । जब कि ई०टी०एम० सही कार्य कर रहा था। तोटिकट वाराणसी से बी०टी० बुक पर क्यों बनाये। और यह स्पष्ट होता है कि आगे मार्ग पर चेकिंग की जानकारी होने पर परिचालक द्वारा बी०टी० बुक से टिकट जारी कर र्मापत्र पर प्रविश्टि की गयी क्योकि मशीनद्वारा रामनगर स्टेशनसे टिकट बनाये जा चुके है।

ई०टी०एम० से एक बार स्टेज बदल जाने के बाद पीछे से टिकट नहीं बनाये जा

सकते है।

रिपोर्ट आपकी सेवा में आवश्यक कार्यवाही हेतु प्रेषित।"

11. The appeal thereof was also rejected by an order dated 04.01.2016. At this stage, petitioner has approach this Court by way of filing petition No.8824 of 2016, which was dismissed by an order 25.02.2016 to approach the Revisional Authority.

12. In pursuance of above, a revision petition was filed, however, Revisional Authority also dismissed it by an order dated 13.5.2016 and all above orders i.e. 27.06.2015, 04.01.2016 and 13.05.2016 are impugned in this writ petition.

13. In the aforesaid circumstances, it may a submission that procedure was not followed is rejected being contrary to record. The Court also takes note that it was consistently mentioned in the impugned orders that when inspection was conducted on 02.03.2024 at 09.19 hours at Adahalat, it was found that petitioner has issued 9 B.T. tickets from Varanasi though ETM machine i.e. it was working properly as 26 ETM ticket generated from Varanasi to Ramnagar. It was also found that despite absolute that the petitioner has issued 3 tickets from Narayanpur just before the bus was stopped.

14. The aforesaid factual aspect are not much disputed during the inquiry before the Appellate Authority or before the Revisional Authority. The aforesaid fact cannot be disputed before this Court also in absence of any material or substantial evidence.

15. The aforesaid facts are tried to be disputed by learned Senior Counsel while referring a copy of the print out of ETM machine report and way bill, annexed as serial No.3 in the supplementary affidavit, however, it would not be helpful, since it is a consistent case against petitioner that despite ETM machine was working condition and there is no material except a vague assertion that it was not working. There was no requirement to issue ticket from B.T. book, therefore, other aspect that he has issued at least three tickets from B.T. book just before the bus was stopped by inspection squad is substantially against him.

16. I have perused written submissions also, wherein oral arguments have been repeated and as observed in earlier part of this judgement that decision making process was found to be legal. In present case, due process was followed. There is no error in decision making process as well as it is not a case of no evidence.

17. In the aforesaid circumstances, on basis of proved charges as well as taking note of prior conduct, impugned punishment of termination does not require any interference, therefore, this writ petition is dismissed.

Order Date :- 05.08.2025

P. Pandey