Uttarakhand High Court
Order Dated 10Th June vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 10 June, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:4701-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY
Writ Petition (S/B) No. 450 of 2015
Order dated 10th June, 2025
Jeewan Chandra Sanwal -------Writ Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ------Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Ms. Bhavya Sharma, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Lalit Belwal,
learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. P. S. Bisht, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the
State/respondent no.1.
Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 4.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT:
(per Subhash Upadhyay, J.)
Present writ petition has been filed claiming the
following reliefs:
“(a) Call for the record of the case and issue a writ,
order or direction in the nature of certiorari,
quashing and setting aside the orders dated
06.07.2012, passed by the Public Service Tribunal,
Uttarakhand (contained in Annexure No. 8),
dismissing the claim petition dated 13.04.2010
passed by the Managing Director, UTC, Dehradun
(contained in Annexure No. 7) dismissing the Second
Appeal, dated 19.08.2008 passed by the Divisional
Manager, UTC, Tanakpur (contained in Annexure No.
6) dismissing the First Appeal and dated 31.08.2007
1
2025:UHC:4701-DB
passed Assistant General Manager, UTC Tanakpur
(contained in Annexure No. 5) passing the
punishment order of dismissal of service of the
petitioner.
(b) Call for the record of the case and issue a writ,
order or direction in the nature of certiorari,
quashing and setting aside the charge-sheet dated
23.02.2004, show cause notice dated 07.10.2005,
inquiry report and the whole departmental
proceedings initiated against the petitioner.”
2. Petitioner, who was working as a Conductor in
Tanakpur Depot of Uttarakhand Transport
Corporation was issued a charge-sheet on 23rd
February, 2004 narrating the various instances
wherein it was found that the passengers were not
issued tickets by the petitioner. There were 13 such
different instances when the bus was inspected by
9 different checking Officers and it was found that
passengers were not issued tickets by the
petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply to the
charge-sheet and after due inquiry conducted by
the respondent, the charges were found proved
against him and the petitioner was removed from
service vide order dated 31 August, 2007, passed
by the Assistant General Manager, UTC, Tanakpur.
The appeal preferred by the petitioner before the
Regional Manager, Uttarakhand Road Transport
Corporation, Tanakpur was dismissed on 19th
August, 2008 and the Revision preferred by the
petitioner was also dismissed by the Managing
Director, Uttarakhand Transport Corporation on
2
2025:UHC:4701-DB
13th April, 2010. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a
Claim Petition No. 30/NB/2010 before the Public
Service Tribunal at Nainital, which too was
dismissed on 6th July, 2012. The petitioner has
assailed the aforesaid orders in the present Writ
Petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
order passed by the Disciplinary Authority
Appellate Court, Reviewing authority, and the
learned Public Service Tribunal are unsustainable
as the Show Cause Notice was issued by the same
authority who inflicted punishment upon the
petitioner. He further submitted that in the show
cause notice, it was mentioned that punishment of
removal from service is to be imposed, therefore,
asking the petitioner to give reply to that notice was
an empty formality. Learned counsel for the
petitioner further submits that the learned Public
Service Tribunal did not consider the fact that the
Office Memorandum of the respondent no. 2 dated
12.03.2006 and 30.08.2007, was not adhered to, in
which instructions for conducting an inquiry were
issued, wherein it was specified that in case of
travelling without ticket the statement of the
passengers or at least the names and address of
the passengers should be recorded. Learned
counsel for the petitioner further contends that
proper opportunity of hearing was not given to the
petitioner and the penalty imposed is
disproportionate to the charges leveled and the said
aspect was also not considered by the Public
3
2025:UHC:4701-DB
Service Tribunal.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to
4 submits that the contention of the petitioner so
far as it relates to the issuance of show cause
notice and disciplinary proceedings being under
taken by the same authority is concerned, the
same is unfounded as the show Cause Notice was
issued by the Assistant Regional Manager, Bhowali,
whereas the punishment was imposed upon the
petitioner by a different authority i.e. the Assistant
General Manager, Uttarakhand Transport
Corporation, Tanakpur. Learned counsel for the
respondent nos. 2 to 4 also drew the attention of
the Court on para 5 of the counter affidavit filed by
Assistant General Manager, (Legal), Uttarakhand
Transport Corporation. The said paragraph no. 5 of
the counter affidavit is being excerpted:
“5. That the petitioner is habitual defaulter as he
was found carrying passengers without ticket from
time to time and he has been punished several times.
Some of the punishment awarded to the petitioner
are given as under:-
(i) That vide order dated 30.9.1989 one year
increment was stopped vide order dated
9.12.1991 three years increment stopped
and vide order dated 2.4.1993 the
petitioner was suspended and vide order
dated 22.4.1993 he was reverted in his
original pay scale and salary for the
suspension period was forfeited.
(ii) That on 21.8.1996 passengers were
permitted by the petitioner for traveling
without ticket and punishment vide order
dated 25.10.1996 and 18 months good
4
2025:UHC:4701-DB
character allowances was forfeited in
respect of petitioner and adverse entry was
also recorded in the service book.
(iii) That on 18.9.1996 he was carrying 2
passengers without ticket and petitioner
after due inquiry was punished vide order
dated 28.9.1996 and given adverse entry in
the service record.
(iv) That petitioner was suspended from service
and after due inquiry he was removed from
service vide order dated 3.7.2001. The
petitioner filed appeal against the removal
order before the Regional Manager, Nainital
and Regional Manager Nainital by his order
dated 2.4.2002 reinstated the petitioner in
service by giving opportunity to improve in
his conduct. But the petitioner was
habitual for carrying the passengers
without ticket and petitioner was again
found permitting the passengers without
ticket and the petitioner was charge-
sheeted on different charges on different
dates and also submitted the charge sheet
against him. The Additional Divisional
Manager Almora conducted the inquiry and
submitted the inquiry report after giving
sufficient opportunity to the petitioner after
submitting the inquiry report the show
cause notice was issued to the petitioner
on 7.10.2005. The punishing authority on
the basis of inquiry report vide order dated
31.08.2007 removed the petitioner from
service and forfeited the salary of petitioner
during the suspension period.”
5. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 4
thus submits that the aforesaid fact stated in the
counter affidavit, which has not been rebutted by
the petitioner, depicts that the petitioner was
habitual of carrying passengers without ticket and
causing monetary loss to the Corporation by
5
2025:UHC:4701-DB
misappropriation of fund.
6. It has further been contended by learned counsel
for the respondent nos. 2 to 4 that the learned
Public Service Tribunal has considered the fact
that reliance placed by the petitioner on the Office
Memorandum issued by the Corporation in the
year 2006-07 has no relevance in the present case
as the incidents of ticketless travelling, on which
charges were framed against the petitioner are
related to the year 2003.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material available on record.
8. The removal order passed by the Disciplinary
authority as affirmed by the Appellate Authority,
Revisional Authority and the Public Service
Tribunal are based on correct appreciation of fact.
The finding recorded by the learned Public Service
Tribunal that the Office Memorandum dated
12.03.2006 and 30.08.2007 were not applicable in
the case of petitioner; as the incident of ticketless
travelling was of the year 2003; cannot be faulted.
Moreover, the charge-sheet was issued to the
petitioner on 23.04.2004 much prior to the Office
Memorandum dated 12.03.2006 and 30.08.2007.
The petitioner was provided full opportunity of
hearing as the show cause notice was sent to him
asking him to submit his reply against the enquiry
report. Two witnesses were examined and the
petitioner cross-examined them and submitted that
6
2025:UHC:4701-DB
he do not want to cross-examine any other witness.
Learned Public Service Tribunal has considered
these aspects in detail. Scope of judicial review in
such matter is limited and the finding recorded by
the Public Service Tribunal cannot be disturbed as
the same are based on correct appreciation of facts.
The learned Public Service Tribunal has also
recorded the finding that the punishment imposed
upon the petitioner is commensurate to the charge
levelled against him. Law is well settled, that the
disciplinary authority and the Appellate authority
being fact finding authorities have exclusive power
to appreciate the evidence and this Court cannot
disturb the findings of fact while exercising power
of judicial review. This Court would not interfere
with the decision taken by the authority unless it
was illegal or suffered from procedural impropriety or
was irrational.
9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of V. Ramana
vs. A.P.SRTC and Others, reported in (2005) 7
Supreme Court Cases 338 has held as follows:
“4. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that the High Court should
have considered the question of quantum of
punishment by applying the principles of Section
11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short
“the Act”). If was further submitted there were
minor lapses and smallness of the amount has not
been considered in the proper perspective and order
of termination of service should not have been
passed. Learned counsel for the respondent7
2025:UHC:4701-DB
corporation supported the order of the Tribunal and
judgment of the High Court. In Karnataka SRTC Vs.
B.S. Hullikatti, it was held that misconduct in such
cases were the Bus conductor either had not issued
tickets to a large number of passengers or had
issued tickets of lower denomination, punishment
of removal is proper. It is the responsibility of the
conductors to collect correct fare charges from the
passengers and deposit the same with the
corporation. They Act in fiduciary capacity and it
would be a case of gross misconduct if they do not
collect any fare for the correct amount of fare. A
conductor holds a post of trust. A person guilty of
breach of trust should be imposed punishment of
removal from service. The factual position shows
that the appellant’s conduct in collecting fare at the
designated place and not collecting fare from
persons who had already travelled were in violation
of various regulations contained in the Andhra
Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation
Employees (Conduct) regulations, 1963 (in short
“the Regulations”). In Karnataka State Road
Transport Case it was held that it is misplaced
sympathy by Courts in awarding lesser
punishments where on checking it is found that the
Bus conductors have either not issued tickets to a
large number of passengers, though they should
have, or have issued tickets of a lower denomination
knowing fully well the correct fare to be charged. It
was finally held that the order of dismissal should
not have been set aside. This view was reiterated by
a three Judge Bench in Regional Manager, RSRTC
Vs. Ghanshyam Sharma, where it was additionally
observed that the proved acts amount either to a8
2025:UHC:4701-DB
case of dishonesty or gross negligence, and bus
conductors who by their actions or inactions cause
financial loss to the corporation are not fit to be
retained in service.
5. The Principle was reiterated in Regional
Manager, U.P. SRTC vs. Hoti Lal, 1985 AC 374.”
10. The said view was reiterated in the subsequent
decision in the case of Uttarakhand State Road
Transport Corporation vs. Sanjay Kumar
Nautiyal, reported in 2008 (12) SCC 131 and
further in Civil Appeal No. 2038 of 2018, UP State
Road Transport Corporation vs. Gopal Shukla,
decided on 10.09.2015.
11. Thus, we find no infirmity in the orders passed by
Departmental authorities. The learned Public
Service Tribunal has given cogent reasons for not
interfering in the orders passed by the
Departmental Authorities and we are not inclined
to take a different view than the view taken by the
Public Service Tribunal The Writ Petition fails and
is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
(Subhash Upadhyay, J.)
Dated:10.06.2025
Kaushal
9