Deependra Singh v. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and 2 Others

Allahabad HC12 Feb 2026WRIA/2122/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Writ-A No. 2122 of 2026, Deependra Singh v. UPSRTC, order dated 12.02.2026 by Vikram D. Chauhan, J. Fresh enquiry into 2012 incident initiated pursuant to judgment dated 9.9.2025 in Writ-A No. 14886 of 2022 (Arvind Singh v. UPSRTC); contention based on judgment dated 14.7.2025 protecting similarly placed employees rejected as unsupported — counsel conceded the 9.9.2025 judgment contained no such stipulation; liberty granted to seek clarification/review before learned Single Judge; case listed 12.3.2026 as fresh. Interlocutory/adjournment order; no final merits decision.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the learned Single Judge for clarification/review of the order dated 9.9.2025; case listed on 12.3.2026 as fresh. ¶¶17

Deependra Singh vs U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the learned Single Judge for clarification/review of the order dated 9.9.2025; case listed on 12.3.2026 as fresh.

¶¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents could initiate fresh enquiry into a 2012 incident in pursuance of the judgment dated 9.9.2025, notwithstanding the contention that similarly placed employees were protected by a judgment dated 14.7.2025 confining fresh enquiry to misconduct committed within the last one or two years.

¶¶15

Court's answer

The Court permitted learned counsel for the petitioner time to approach the learned Single Judge for clarification/review of the earlier order dated 9.9.2025 and directed that the case be listed on 12.3.2026 as fresh.

¶¶16

Key takeaways

It was recorded (as a concession by counsel, the point otherwise being left open for the proposed clarification/review proceedings) that the judgment dated 9.9.2025 does not contain a stipulation confining fresh enquiry to misconduct committed within the last one or two years.obiter¶¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Vikram D. Chauhan, J.), WRIT - A No. 2122 of 2026, Deependra Singh v. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and 2 Others (order dated February 12, 2026): Fresh enquiry proceedings had been initiated by the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation against the petitioner in respect of a 2012 incident in pursuance of the judgment dated 9.9.2025 in Writ-A No. 14886 of 2022 (Arvind Singh v. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and others), which (per its quoted paragraph 14) gave the respondents two options — to conduct a fresh inquiry after giving opportunity of hearing, or to permit execution of a fresh contract. Contending that similarly placed employees stood protected by a judgment dated 14.7.2025 (liberty to hold fresh enquiry confined to misconduct committed within the last one or two years), counsel sought a similar reading into the order dated 9.9.2025, but could not dispute that the said judgment contained no such stipulation. Counsel was granted time to approach the learned Single Judge for clarification/review of the order dated 9.9.2025, and the case was listed on 12.3.2026 as fresh.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 2122 of 2026

Deependra Singh

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation And 2 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Bhawesh Pratap Singh : Sheo Ram Singh

¶9

Court No. - 34

¶10

HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in pursuance to the judgment dated 9.9.2025 passed in Writ-A No. 14886 of 2022 (Arvind Singh Vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and others) respondents have initiated fresh enquiry proceedings in respect of an incident which has occurred in the year 2012. Paragraph no. 14 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶12

" 14. The Court also takes note of rival submissions on the issue of arbitration clause. Though at this stage Court is of the opinion that petitioners have challenged the order of termination directly before this Court but otherwise also respondents have not shows any instances where arbitration clause was actually acted upon. Therefore, at this stage to consider the rival submissions to the extent that whether arbitration clause is valid or not, would not be appropriate and petitioners will have a liberty to challenge the same as and when situation so warrants as well as if the case was not referred or referred to arbitration it would make no difference since the Court is of the opinion that in such cases where impugned orders being stigmatic and passed without giving any opportunity whatsoever, as required by Circular dated 27.04.2023, are liable to be set aside. However, the respondents will have two options, i.e., either to conduct inquiry afresh after giving opportunity of hearing or to permit the petitioners to execute fresh contract and at that stage it will be incumbent on respondents to clarify all conditions mentioned in contract and it is upto the petitioners to accept it or not or to take any legal remedy, as available in accordance with law. "

¶13

WRIA No. 2122 of 2026

¶14

¶15

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that judgment dated 9.9.2025 provides two options to the respondents either to proceed afresh in the enquiry or execute fresh contract. The respondents have proceeded for holding fresh enquiry. Confronted with the situation as to the fact that fresh enquiry has been accorded in pursuance to the judgment dated 9.9.2025 although the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that similarly placed persons have been protected by judgment dated 14.7.2025 that those employees who have committed misconduct in last one or two years employer has been granted liberty to hold enquiry afresh. The similar finding has to be read in the order dated 9.9.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the fact that judgment dated 9.9.2025 does not contain such stipulation.

¶16

Confronted with such stipulation, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be granted time to approach learned Single Judge for clarification/review of the earlier order dated 9.9.2025.

¶17

List this case on 12.3.2026 as fresh.

¶18

February 12, 2026 VMA

¶19

(Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)

¶20

Digitally signed by :- VISHWA MOHAN ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Deependra Singh v. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deependra Singh v. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Suresh Chandra Gupta vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kashinath Patel vs State of Up and 3 Others

Shashibhushan Shukla vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Ansar Ahmad-I vs U.P. State Road Transport Corporation at Lucknow and 2 Others

Harish Chandra vs Director Local Body U.P. Lucknow and 2 Others

Committee of Management, Janta Inter College Kharkhauda vs State of U.P. and 3 Others