Special appeal by road transport corporation dismissed. Court affirmed Single Judge's order granting financial benefits to respondent-conductor. Found Revisional Authority's finding that charges were false had attained finality as employer never challenged it.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:76423-DB
Reserved
Chief Justice's Court
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 548 of 2024
Appellant :- U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Hq Lko, Thru. Its M.D. And 3 Others
Respondent :- Aditya Kumar Mishra Counsel for Appellant :- Ratnesh Chandra Counsel for Respondent :- Mohd. Ali
Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
(Per Justice Jaspreet Singh)
2
3
4
Superintendent, Gorakhpur Region and it was alleged that nine passengers were travelling in the said bus without ticket, though they had paid the fare to the respondent.
5
this amounted to some negligence on the part of the respondent, hence, for the aforesaid reason, it concluded that the punishment of removal from service was not commensurate as the said charges were not proved, consequently, it partly allowed the revision setting aside the punishment of removal from service treating it to be disproportionate to the conduct of the respondent, and instead ordered to withhold four increments of the respondent.
6
7
statements were given by the ticketless passengers, but they refused to give a signed written statement.
8
Kushinagar Degree College who had gone to attend a N.C.C Camp.
" ारा अधोहसता् ्ቌ री करणप्ቔ ावलीमें उपलब्धसमसत् अभ�लि खोे ं कापररशीलनकि कयागयापरि रशीलनोपराि न्तयहपायागयाककि उसके कवरि लगाये गये आरोपअसत्य , कालपक् नकि , कनराधारि , मनगढन्तएव ामकहै।ररवीजनकताि ारापररचालि लतवाहनमि ें स�ी याकि्ቔ यों के पासवैधक3क3 उपलबि ्धथ , कोई�ीया्ቔ ीक6नाकि 3क3 नहीि था। परिरचालिलतवाहन 32 सी3रछो3ी6सथी , जिजसमेंकिनरी्ቌणकता0ओं ारास्वयं 45 या्ቔीदशा0यागयाहै , इससे�ीयहस्प्ቖ होताहैकिक परिरचालिलतवाहनमेंकुलयाकि्ቔयोंकीसंख्यावाहनकी्ቌ मतासेकही 6हुतअधिधकया्ቔी6ैठेंहै।किनरी्ቌणकता0ओंकीरिरपो30 केआधारपरयह �ी्ቚ माभिणतहैकिक 36 याकि्ቔयोंकेपासवैधकि3क3 उपलब्धथे , जोस्वतः माभिणतहोताहै।वाहनमें्ቌ मताकेअनुरूपकि3क3 सकिहतया्ቔी उपलब्धथेतथावाहनमेंत6 तत्समय 04 स्टा�फ़ �ीउपቝኌस्थतथे। 09 ररवीजनकताि 0 को या्ቔ ीक6नाकि 3क3 गोरखपि ुरसे पडरौनापायाजाना दशा0यागयाह , यहसत्यनहीं ह , कयो् कं कवहस�ीजि जि न्ह 09 या्ቔ ीकहा गयाहै वहकुशीनगरधडि ्ቇ ीकालजके े छा थ , औरएन०सी०सीकैम्प , जोरामपुरमें लगाथावहीं से वोसवारहुएथ , लके कनरि रवीजनकताि ारा 6ार - 6ारककरायामाि गं े जाने परउनछा्ቔ ो ाराककरायानदि करे पररचालककोि कमतकि कयाजारहाथा।रि रवीजनकताि ारावाहनक चालकसे 6ार6ारगाडीरोकने काअनुरोधकरने परयाकि्ቔ यो ारागाडी नरोकने कीहठकरते हुएवाहनसंचाललतकरायीगयी।ऐसीቝि सኌ थध् ति ररपो3ि 0कता0ओं कायहकत0व्यथाककउनछाि ्ቔ ों से ककरायावसि ूलकर
9
पररचालककोदि ते े हुएक3क3 6नवाति , जोकककि नरीि ्ቌ णकता0ओ ारानही ककयागयाि , कOर�ीवाहनमि 09 या्ቔ ीक6नाकि 3क3ि होने से इन्कारनही ककयाजासकताजि जसकि े ललएरि रवीजनकताि 0 दोषीह , परन्तु इतनानही ककउसि े सवासे े पृथककरकदयाजाएि , ररवीजनकताि 0 कोकदयागयादि ण्ड आरोपों कीतलनामु ें अत्यधधककठोरहि ।ै
अतएव्ቦ ीआकिदत्यकिम्ቦ , �ूतपूव0 परिरचालक , गोरखपुरधिडपो , गोरखपुर्ቌे्ቔ केकिवरु्ቍ्ቌे्ቔ ीय्ቚ 6न्धक , गोरखपुरकेदण्डादेशसंख्या - 15741 किदनांक 07.10.2014 एवं्ቚ धान्ቚ 6न्धक ( किव०एवंवा० ), परिरवहनकिनगममुख्यालय , लखनऊकेअपीलीयआदेशसख्या -984 रोडी /15-217 अपील /2014 किदनांक 16.11.2015 कोकिनरस्तकरतेहुए रिरवीजनकता0 की 04 वष0 कीवाቧኌषकवेतनवृधि्ቍ कि6ना�किवष्य्ቚ �ावके रोकतेहुएसेवा6हालकिकयाजाताहैतथासेवासे6ाहररहनेकीअवधिध काकोईकिव्ቈीयला�देयनहींहोगा , परन्तुसेवाकीतारतम्यता6नी रहेगी।
उपरो्ሹानुसार्ቦ ीआकिदत्यकिम्ቦ , �ूतपूव0 परिरचालक , गोरखपुर धिडपो , गोरखपुर्ቌे्ቔ्ቛ ारा्ቚ स्तुतरिरवीजनकिदनांक 07.01.2016, का अቝኌन्तमरूपसेकिनस्तारणकिकयाजाताहै। "
10
11
for not lodging of FIR or non initiation of criminal proceedings has no bearing to prove the misconduct in departmental proceedings, is not attracted in the instant case. Moreover, the said decision does not come to the aid of the learned counsel for the appellant as in the instant case, neither there was any evidence to indicate that the respondent had received the fare and yet without issuing tickets it had carried nine passengers. The bus driver was also not examined and in absence of any cogent evidence the Revisional Authority categorically recorded a finding that the charges against the respondent were not proved and this finding was not assailed by the appellant which had attained finality. Similarly, the decision of the Apex Court in Gopal Shukla (supra) also does not come to the aid of the appellant for the reasons as mentioned above.
Order Date :-20th November, 2024
Harshita
(Jaspreet Singh, J.) (Arun Bhansali, CJ.)
Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an appellate court can attack findings of a revisional authority that were never challenged by the employer beforehand.
Whether the High Court erred in holding the employer liable for the respondent's absence from service when departmental charges were found false.
Whether the grant of financial benefits to a dismissed employee is warranted when the punishment order itself is quashed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and another vs Gopal Shukla and anotherReferred¶18
Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and another vs Gopal Shukla and another; (2015) 17 SCC 603 · Who else cites this
Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and another vs Gajadhar NathDistinguished¶18
Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and another vs Gajadhar Nath; (2022) 3 SCC 190 · Who else cites this
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation
Aditya Kumar Mishra
Arun Bhansali
Jaspreet Singh
As recorded by the court registry
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
