Allahabad High Court upholds dismissal of bus conductor who pocketed ₹285 from 30 ticketless passengers

The Allahabad High Court on Friday upheld the dismissal of a Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) bus conductor, who was removed from service for collecting ₹285 in fare from 30 passengers without issuing tickets to them [Mohd Arif v. UP State Road Transport Corp & Ors.]

Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai found no illegality in the order of removal and the decision of the appellate authority to confirm the conductor's dismissal from service.

"Accordingly, this writ petition fails and is dismissed,” the Court said while rejecting the bus conductor's plea challenging termination from service.

The case dated back to 1990. An inspection team had stopped the conductor's bus on March 9, 1990, between Renukot and Robertsganj, and found that 30 of the 83 passengers were traveling without tickets, even though the conductor had collected a total of ₹285 from them.

This led to issuance of a departmental chargesheet against the conductor Mohd Arif. He was eventually found guilty in the inquiry. Consequently, the disciplinary authority in May 2002 terminated his services. His appeal against the termination was also dismissed in September 2002.

Arif then moved the High Court arguing that key witnesses, including a member of the inspection team, were not examined.

It was also contended that the Regional Manager who issued the punishment order was not the competent authority. He also alleged that UPSRTC acted unfairly by taking action against him while not issuing any charge against the driver of the bus.

However, Court found that the petitioner himself had insisted before the inquiry ifficer to close the proceedings on the basis of his statement and the witnesses already produced by him along with his reply to the charges.

"Thus, the claim of the petitioner that certain witnesses were not examined during the course of inquiry proceedings is unsustainable, as the petitioner himself, during the course of inquiry proceedings, forgo his right to examine them by insisting upon the Inquiry Officer to complete the inquiry without examination of such witnesses," the Court said.

The Court also reiterated that strict rules of evidence do not apply to departmental enquiries. On the challenge to the competence of the disciplinary authority, the Court held that the Regional Manager who issued the punishment order was senior to the appointing authority and therefore, had the authority to impose the removal.

It also refused to accept the argument of bias.

"Merely, because the inspection team did not rely upon the version of the petitioner while preparing the inspection report cannot be a reason to say that the inspection team led by Shri Heera Lal Upadhyaya was biased against the petitioner," the Court said.

The Court also noted that its powers under Article 226 are limited in disciplinary matters and do not extend to reassessing evidence.

"It is needless to mention that the scope of writ jurisdiction while dealing with issues relating to disciplinary proceedings is limited. The power of judicial review is confined to the decision-making process and the power of judicial review conferred on a Constitutional Court or Tribunal is limited," the bench said.

Thus, the Court concluded that the proceedings were conducted properly and that there was no breach of justice. It, therefore, dismissed the petition.

Advocates Sameer Singh, Brijesh Kumar, Abhishek Singh, Raza Ali Khan, Syed Shabih Haider and Zuber Hasan represented the petitioner.

Advocates Ratnesh Chandra, Mahesh Chandra and Puneet Chandra represented the respondents.

[Read Judgment]