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

Allahabad HC12 Feb 2026WRIA/2125/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court interim order; WRIT - A No. 2125 of 2026; Ansar Ahmad-I v. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation At Lucknow And 2 Others; Vikram D. Chauhan, J.; fresh enquiry into incident of year 2012; initiated in pursuance of judgment dated 9.9.2025 in Writ-A No. 14886 of 2022 (Arvind Singh); contrast sought with judgment dated 14.7.2025 protecting misconduct within last one or two years; counsel conceded no such stipulation in judgment dated 9.9.2025; liberty to seek clarification/review before learned Single Judge; listed fresh on 12.3.2026.

What did the court decide?

Time granted to learned counsel for the petitioner to approach the learned Single Judge for clarification/review of the earlier order dated 9.9.2025; case listed fresh on 12.3.2026. ¶¶18

Ansar Ahmad-I vs U.P. State Road Transport Corporation at Lucknow and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

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

¶¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents may proceed with a fresh enquiry in respect of an incident of the year 2012 in pursuance of the judgment dated 9.9.2025, when the petitioner contends that similarly placed employees were protected by the judgment dated 14.7.2025 only in cases of misconduct committed within the last one or two years.

¶¶16

Court's answer

Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute 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.

¶¶16

Ratio / Principle

Time was granted to learned counsel for the petitioner to approach the learned Single Judge for clarification/review of the earlier order dated 9.9.2025, and the case was directed to be listed fresh on 12.3.2026.

¶¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Ansar Ahmad-I v. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (Writ-A No. 2125 of 2026, Allahabad High Court, Vikram D. Chauhan, J., order dated February 12, 2026) — Interim order. Fresh enquiry proceedings had been initiated by the Corporation 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), paragraph 14 of which offered the respondents two options: inquiry afresh after giving opportunity of hearing, or execution of a fresh contract. Contending that a judgment dated 14.7.2025 protected only employees whose misconduct fell within the last one or two years, the petitioner sought a similar reading of the order dated 9.9.2025; counsel, however, could not dispute that the judgment dated 9.9.2025 contains no such stipulation. Time was granted to seek clarification/review of the order dated 9.9.2025 before the learned Single Judge; matter listed fresh on 12.3.2026.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 2125 of 2026

Ansar Ahmad-I

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation At Lucknow And 2 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

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

¶13

WRIA No. 2125 of 2026

¶14

¶15

law. "

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

List this case on 12.3.2026 as fresh.

¶19

(Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)

¶20

February 12, 2026 VMA

¶21

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ansar Ahmad-I v. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation at Lucknow 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

Deependra Singh vs U.P. State Road Transport Corporation 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