Allahabad High Court

Pradeep Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 28 August, 2025

Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 



 

 

 

 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
WRIT  A No. - 15971 of 2018
 

 
Pradeep Kumar
 

 
..Petitioners(s)
 

 
Versus
 

 
State of U.P. and others 
 

 
..Respondents(s)
 

 

 
Counsel for Petitioners(s)
 
:
 
Shailendra Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)
 
:
 
Mrityunjay Mohan Sahai
 

 

 
Reserved on 25.08.2025
 
Delivered on 28.08.2025
 

 
Court No. - 5
 

 
HONBLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

1. Petitioner-Pradeep Kumar, was a driver with U.P. State Road Transport Corporation. On 12.12.2005 he was plying a Bus No. UP-53T-5864 on Lucknow to Gorakhpur route when it met an accident with a Motorcycle which led to death of driver of the Motorcycle, B.K. Pandey.

2. Parents of deceased have filed a Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 35 of 2006 which was decided by judgment dated 29.09.2009 and a finding was returned that petitioner was failed to produce during examination his genuine/ original driving licence and on basis of a report from concerned Licensing Authority, it was found that driving licence of petitioner was fake and a compensation of Rs. 1,89,500/- was awarded.

3. The aforesaid act of submitting a forged driving licence in said proceedings also became a ground to issue a charge sheet against petitioner on following charges:

"1. विभागीय आदेशों निर्देशों की अवहोलना करने

2. अपनी वाहन को तेज गति से चालने / स्टेयरिंग पर नियन्त्रण न रखते हुए अपने गलत साईड से वाहन चलाकर दुर्घटना करने

3. प्रति प्ररिक्षा के दौरान अपना गलत व्यान देने एवम् लाईसेन्स की मूल प्रति न्यायालय में प्रस्तुत न करने

4. रूपया 2,39,644-00 का निगम को क्षति पहुंचाने

5. अपनी डियूटी इमानदारी पूर्वक न करने

6. कत्वर्यच्यूत होने तथा कर्मचारी / आचरण संगीता का उल्घंन करने के आप प्रथम दृष्टयता दोषी पाये जाते हैं"

4. Petitioner has submitted a reply to charge sheet, however, he has not made any reply to the allegation that he made incorrect statement during proceeding and has not submitted genuine/ original driving licence.

5. In aforesaid circumstances, an inquiry was conducted and inquiry report was submitted that not only petitioner was failed to produce genuine/ original driving licence but from a report of Licensing Authority, Sant Kabir Nagar it was found that DL No. P-526/BST/95 was issued in the name of Sri Pawan Kumar Gupta and not in the name of petitioner, i.e., Pradeep Kumar. It was also noted in inquiry report that petitioner was not able to state correctly the place from where his driving licence was issued.

6. The Disciplinary Authority vide order 30.10.2012 after considering the inquiry report and observations made therein passed major punishment of removal from service. Disciplinary Authority took note the conduct of petitioner that he was failed to produce original driving licence as well as that a report was submitted by Licensing Authority, Sant Kabir Nagar that his driving licence was a fake document.

7. Against aforesaid order of punishment petitioners appeal as well as revision were also dismissed vide orders dated 17.10.2016 and 14.03.2018, respectively.

8. Aforesaid three orders dated 30.10.2012, 17.10.2016 and 14.03.2018 are impugned in present writ petition.

9. Sri Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioner, submitted that subsequently petitioner has sought information under Right to Information Act and the office of Licensing Authority, Sant Kabir Nagar submitted following information dated 05.10.2015:

"प्रदीप कुमार पुत्र श्री रामनाथ

गाo व पो०- गजपुर था०- गगहों

जनपद- गोरखपुर

राज्य सूचना प्राधिकार प्राधिनियम 2005 की धारा-6 के अन्तर्गत सूचना उपलब्ध कराने के सन्दर्भ में:-

आपके प्रार्थना पत्र दिनॉक 30.09.2015 सूचित कराना है कि वान्छित ड्राइविंग लाइसेंस UP5819950000469 जो श्री प्रदीप कुमार पुत्र श्री रामनाथ ग्रा०- गजपुर, बॉसगाँव जनपद-गोरखपुर वर्तमान पता- धनघटा, संतकबीरनगर के नाम दिनॉक 19.10.1995 को लाइसेंसिंग अथॉरिटी बस्ती द्वारा लाइसेंस संख्या P-526/BST/1995 पर Mcy+LMV (ODL) तथा 20.11.2007 को HGV+HPV (PE) जारी है जो दिनॉक 28.11.2003 तक वैध था। इस कार्यालय द्वारा दिनाँक 29.11.2003 को नवीनीकरण किया गया था जो दिनॉक 28.11.2006 तक तथा पुनः नवीनीकरण दिनॉक 21.06.2007 से 20.06.2010 तक तथा नवीनीकरण दिनाँक 3.07.2010 से 22.07.2010 तक एवं दिनॉक 25.08.2015 से दिनाँक 24.08.2018 तक के लिए किया गया है। संतकबीरनगर में नवीनीकरण के समय लाइसेंस धारक का लाइसेंस संख्या 469/OR/SKN/2002 पर पृष्ठांकन हुआ था, जो कम्प्यूटरीकृत करते समय लाइसेंस संख्या UP5819950000469 हो गया है।

सूचनार्थ प्रेषित"

10. On basis of above report, learned counsel further submitted that petitioners licence was a genuine document and not a fake document, therefore, his punishment order as well as appellate and revisional orders are liable to be set aside.

11. Per contra, Sri Mrityunjay Mohan Sahai, learned counsel for Respondent-U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, has opposed above submissions and submitted that inquiry proceedings were conducted after following the principles of natural justice. Petitioner was provided opportunity of oral hearing also. However, he was failed to submit genuine/ original driving licence and has placed no document which could contradict the report submitted by Licensing Authority, Sant Kabir Nagar that petitioner has submitted a fake driving licence.

12. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material on record.

13. As referred above, principles of natural justice were complied with and petitioner was provided opportunity to place his case, therefore, there is no error in decision making process. Inquiry report was submitted on basis of a report submitted by Licensing Authority, Sant Kabir Nagar that licence number of submitted by petitioner was not issued to him but to some other person and, therefore, major punishment of removal from service was imposed.

14. The argument of learned counsel for petitioner is based on a subsequent information allegedly obtained under Right to Information Act. However, from perusal of photocopy of driving licence annexed alongwith the writ petition and contents of report, obtained under Right to Information Act, are contrary so much as that report states that licence was renewed from 03.07.2010 to 22.07.2010. Though copy of driving licence is not very clear, however, still it is clear that it was renewed from 23.07.2010 to 22.07.2013 and further according to report it was renewed from 25.08.2015 to 24.08.2018 but photocopy of driving licence, which is in the form of Card, shows that driving licence for heavy vehicle was valid upto 18.10.2015 and for light vehicle it was valid upto 24.08.2018. Therefore, the aforesaid observation is also contrary to report under Right to Information Act. For reference scanned copy of purported information under Right to Information Act is also pasted hereinafter (typed copy is referred in para 9 of this judgment):

15. From above, it is clearly evident that there is overwriting by hand on typed letters. Learned counsel for petitioner is not able to convince the Court that overwriting was made by Licensing Authority since in normal circumstances an information given under Right to Information Act does not have overwriting on typed copy of information.

16. In aforesaid circumstances also it appears to be a case of misleading and petitioner has submitted a fake driving licence and in order to prove his case has submitted forged or tempered document before this Court.

17. In view of above, no ground is made out to interfere with orders impugned in present writ petition. Dismissed accordingly.

August 28, 2025