Allowed

Dheeraj Singh Fartyal v. Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, Dehradun, 1 Raj Vihar

Uttarakhand HC2 Nov 2023WPSS/816/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed multiple writ petitions challenging the termination of a temporary bus conductor of Uttarakhand Transport Corporation from service. The court held that since the termination was punitive (based on a charge), principles of natural justice regarding notice and hearing were mandatory. As these were ignored, the orders were unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

The impugned termination orders dated 21.04.2018 and 25.04.2018 were quashed and set aside, with the authority directed to pass a fresh order after affording a hearing.

Date

Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
directions and
Registrar’s order
with Signatures

COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS

WPSS No.816 of 2018, WPSS No.817 of 2018,
WPSS No.818 of 2018, WPSS No.819 of 2018,
WPSS No.820 of 2018, WPSS No.821 of 2018,
WPSS No.822 of 2018, WPSS No.823 of 2018,
WPSS No.824 of 2018, WPSS No.825 of 2018,
WPSS No.826 of 2018, WPSS No.827 of 2018,
WPSS No.828 of 2018, WPSS No.829 of 2018,
WPSS No.830 of 2018, WPSS No.831 of 2018,
WPSS No.832 of 2018, WPSS No.833 of 2018,
WPSS No.834 of 2018, WPSS No.835 of 2018,
WPSS No.836 of 2018, WPSS No.837 of 2018,
WPSS No.1478 of 2018
Hon’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, A.C.J.

Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate, holding
brief of Mr. Rajeev Pathak, Advocate for
the petitioner.
Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate for the
respondents.
2.
Since common questions of law and
fact are involved in these writ petitions,
therefore they were heard together and
are being decided by a common judgment.
However, for the sake of brevity, facts of
Writ Petition (S/ S) No.816 of 2018 alone
are being considered and discussed.
3.
Petitioner was appointed on contract
as Conductor in Uttarakhand Transport
Corporation.
He
has
challenged
the
termination
order
dated
25.04.2018
passed by Assistant General Manager
(Operations) and also the order dated
21.04.2018 issued by General Manager
(Operations).

4.
Petitioner
was
terminated
from
service on the charge that he issued free
tickets
in
the
name
of
Member
of
Parliament;
although,
no
Member
of
Parliament travelled in the Bus on the

given dates, which resulted in financial
loss to the Corporation to the tune of `3,905/ -.
5. It is contended on behalf of petitioner that tickets in Uttarakhand Transport Corporation Buses are issued by a Machine called as ‘Electronic Biometric Ticket Machine’ (E.B.T.M.), in which specific code numbers are assigned to different categories; earlier Senior Citizens were assigned code no.12 upto 22.03.2018, however, w.e.f. 23.03.2018, code number 12 was assigned to Member of Parliament, however, Conductors serving on contract in Corporation buses were not informed about change in code number and, due to ignorance, petitioner issued ticket to Senior Citizens by pressing the button having code no.12. Thus, it is
contended that the mistake, if any, is
bonafide and there was no dishonest
intention on the part of petitioner,
therefore, punishment of termination from
service is not only disproportionate, but also uncalled for.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that since services of the petitioner were terminated by way of
punishment based on a charge, therefore, principles of natural justice were required
to be followed; however, neither any notice nor opportunity of hearing was given to petitioner while terminating his services, which renders the termination order non-est in the eyes of law.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for Uttarakhand Transport
Corporation submitted that the stand taken by petitioner that, due to ignorance,
he pressed code no.12 for issuing ticket to
seniorcitizens, cannot be accepted as,in

given dates, which resulted in financial

loss to the Corporation to the tune of
`3,905/ -.

5.
It
is
contended
on
behalf
of
petitioner
that
tickets
in
Uttarakhand
Transport Corporation Buses are issued by
a Machine called as ‘Electronic Biometric
Ticket
Machine’
(E.B.T.M.),
in
which
specific code numbers are assigned to
different categories; earlier Senior Citizens
were
assigned
code
no.12
upto
22.03.2018, however, w.e.f. 23.03.2018,
code number 12 was assigned to Member
of
Parliament,
however,
Conductors
serving on contract in Corporation buses
were not informed about change in code
number and, due to ignorance, petitioner
issued ticket to Senior Citizens by pressing
the button having code no.12. Thus, it is

contended that the mistake, if any, is

bonafide and there was no dishonest

intention
on
the
part
of
petitioner,

therefore, punishment of termination from

service is not only disproportionate, but
also uncalled for.

6.
Learned counsel for the petitioner
further contends that since services of the
petitioner were terminated by way of

punishment based on a charge, therefore,
principles of natural justice were required

to be followed; however, neither any
notice nor opportunity of hearing was
given to petitioner while terminating his
services, which renders the termination
order non-est in the eyes of law.

7.
Per
contra,
learned
counsel
appearing
for
Uttarakhand
Transport

Corporation
submitted
that
the
stand
taken by petitioner that, due to ignorance,

he pressed code no.12 for issuing ticket to

seniorcitizens, cannot be accepted as,in

the E.B.T.M. machine, the name of the
category is flashed on the screen of the
machine whenever a particular code is
pressed. Thus, according to him, the plea taken by petitioner that he was not aware about the change in code number of E.B.T.M. machine is not available to him.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to paragraph no.10 of the writ petition, where it is specifically stated that neither
any notice nor opportunity of hearing was given to petitioner while passing the termination order.
9. Perusal of the termination order reveals that it is stigmatic in nature and it indicates that services of petitioner were terminated by way of punishment. Law is well settled that in case of simple
discharge of a temporary employee,
principles of natural justice may not be attracted, however, when a temporary employee of the State/ Statutory
Corporation is terminated from service based on a charge, then principles of natural justice are required to be followed. Admittedly, in the present case, neither any notice nor opportunity of hearing was given to petitioner before terminating his
services, therefore, petitioner could not
have his say in the matter.
10. Since the termination of services of
petitioner has civil & evil consequences, therefore, in view of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orrisa Vs. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei & others, reported in AIR 1967 SC 1269, the impugned orders cannot be sustained.
11. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed and theimpugned orders dated

the E.B.T.M. machine, the name of the

category is flashed on the screen of the

machine whenever a particular code is

pressed. Thus, according to him, the plea
taken by petitioner that he was not aware
about the change in code number of
E.B.T.M. machine is not available to him.

8.
Learned counsel for the petitioner
has drawn attention of this Court to
paragraph no.10 of the writ petition,
where it is specifically stated that neither

any notice nor opportunity of hearing was
given to petitioner while passing the
termination order.

9.
Perusal of the termination order
reveals that it is stigmatic in nature and it
indicates that services of petitioner were
terminated by way of punishment. Law is
well
settled
that
in
case
of
simple

discharge
of
a
temporary
employee,

principles of natural justice may not be
attracted, however, when a temporary
employee
of
the
State/ Statutory

Corporation is terminated from service
based on a charge, then principles of
natural justice are required to be followed.
Admittedly, in the present case, neither
any notice nor opportunity of hearing was
given to petitioner before terminating his

services, therefore, petitioner could not

have his say in the matter.

10. Since the termination of services of

petitioner has civil & evil consequences,
therefore, in view of law laid down by
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
State of Orrisa Vs. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei
& others, reported in AIR 1967 SC 1269,
the impugned orders cannot be sustained.

11. Accordingly, the writ petitions are
allowed and theimpugned orders dated

21.04.2018 and 25.04.2018 are quashed and set aside. However, it shall be open
to Competent Authority to pass fresh
order, after affording reasonable
opportunity of hearing to petitioners.
( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, A.C.J.) 02.11.2023 Arpan

21.04.2018 and 25.04.2018 are quashed
and set aside. However, it shall be open

to Competent Authority to pass fresh

order,
after
affording
reasonable

opportunity of hearing to petitioners.

( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, A.C.J.)
02.11.2023
Arpan

Dheeraj Singh Fartyal v. Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, Dehradun, 1 Raj Vihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dheeraj Singh Fartyal v. Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, Dehradun, 1 Raj Vihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Virendra Raj Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Anil Kishore Joshi Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sub Inspector Satish Kumar Sharma Vs Director General of Police, Police Headquarters

Harish Sharma Vs Uttarakhand Transport Corporation Dehradun and Others

Komal Singh Vs Uttarakhand Transport Corporation Dehradun and Others

Shravan Kumar Vs Uttarakhand Transport Corporation Dehradun and Others