Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Mahendra Pal Singh v. R.M.U.P.S.R.Corporation And Others - WRIT - A No. 11340 of 1994 [2007] RD-AH 10044 (24 May 2007)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J

         Heard counsel for the parties and perused the  record.        

Challenge in this writ petition is to the impugned award dated 10.9.93, published on 26.11.93 in Adjudication Case No. 114/91 passed by respondent no. 3.  The Tribunal in the impugned award has held that the dismissal from service of the petitioner without payment of subsistance allowance during the period of suspension is just and valid.  

From perusal of record, it appears that the petitioner was initially appointed as Conductor at Farrukhabad Depot of the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'Corporation') on 21.11.1978. On 10.1.1987 he was conducting the bus number URB 7016 from Farrukhabad to Kayamganj when his bus was stopped by the checking staff.  During the course of checking, it was found that 13 passengers were travelling in the bus withut ticket and as a matter of fact, the petitioner had realized money from them. The petitioner allegedly misbehaved with the checking staff and forcibly took away the way bill.

An F.I.R was loged against the petitioner and he was placed under suspension w.e.f. 31.3.1987.

The petitioner was served with a charge sheet dated 6.4.1982, which was later on withdrawn and a fresh charge sheet dated 26.9.87  was served upon him.

The petitioner submitted his reply dated 18.11.1987 denying the charges.

Sri V.C. Jain, retired District Judge was appointed as enquiry officer and on the basis of his enquiry report holding the petitioner guilty of the charges, a show cause notice dted 12.10.88 was served upon him calling upon him to show cause as to why his services be not dispensed with but he did not submit any reply and thereafter, the department had no other option but to terminate his service forfeiting his subsistance allowance during the period under suspension.

When no reply to the show cause notice was submitted by the petitioner, his services were terminated vide order dated 21.12.1988.

Aggrieved by the order dated 21.12.1988, the petitioner raised industrial dispue under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act and Adjudication Case no. 114/91 was adjudicated by respondent no. 3.

Both the parties filed their written statements, reply and rejoinder affidavit.

After considering the entire material available on record and hearing the parties, the Tribunal arrived to the conclusion that there was no illeglaity or infirmity in the order of termination without payment of subsistance allowance during the period of suspension and accordingly passed the impugned award dated 10.9.1993.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid award dated 10.9.1993, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction by means of the instant writ petition.    

The petitioner was charged for committing misconduct for carrying 13 passengers without ticket who were found by the checking staff travelling in the bus being conducted by him without ticket whereas, he had realized money from them which resulted in loss of revenue to the Corporation.

Counsel for the petitoner has vehemetly urged that according to the charge sheet appended as Annexure 1 to the writ petition, the checking staff had checked bus no.7280 in which 13 passengers were found to be travelling without ticket whereas the bus, which was being conducted by the petitioner was bus no. URB 7016. He urged that since number of the bus in the charge sheet was different than from the case of the department before the Labour Court, no misconduct was committed by the petitioner and he has been wrongly awarded punishment of dismissal from service.  He also urged that the inspecting staff in his statement before the Labour Court had stated that he had not deposited the amount which he had received after issuing the tickets to the passengers, as such, it cannot be said that the petitioner was carrying 13 passengers without ticket .  In this regard, he placed reliance on the following statement of Sri S.P. Awasthi, Traffic Inspector before the Labour Court :-

" &&&&&&lwph 12&ch (1) dk is0dz0 esjs Onkjk oknh dh fo#) dh xbZ fjiksVZ gS A fnukad 10-1-87 dks 13 ;k+=h fcuk fVdV dk;exat Q#[kkckn ds e/; idMs x;s Fks ftudk lkewfgd fVdV cuk;k x;k Fkk] tks cl psd dh xbZ Fkh mldk ua0 ;w0vkj0ch07016 Fkk A blh ds lkFk layXud fVdv ua0 089748 esjs Onkjk cuk;k x;k lkewfgd fVdV gS vkSj bldh ds lkFk layXud ekxZ i= la0 05517 gS A ekxZ i= ij tks vk[;k fy[kh x;h gS og esjs Onkjk fy[kh x;h gS bl ij ifjpkyd ds Hkh gLrk{kj gS A budks ewy esa yk;k gwW] bu ij ,0th0bZ0 1 Mkyk x;k A is0dz0 2 oknh dks fn;k x;k fuyacu vkns'k gS] ewy lkeus gS] bl ij ,0th0bZ0 2 Mkyk x;k A is0dz0 3 vkjksi i= gS ewy lkeus gS] bl ij ,0th0bZ03 Mkyk x;k A is0dz04 dk;kZy; vkns'k gS bl ij Jh ,p0ds0flag ds gLrk{kj gSa] ewy lkeus gS] bl ij ,0th0bZ0 4 Mkyk x;k A is0dz0 5 iqu% oknh dks fn;k x;k lkekU; izca/kd Onkjk vkjksi i= gS] bl ij ,0th0bZ0 5 Mkyk x;k A is0dz0 6 vkjksi i= dk tckc gS] bl ij,0th0bZ0 6 Mkyk x;k A is0dz0 16 Onkjk oknh Jfed dks nafMr fd;k x;k] bl ij Jh ,e0lh0lksudj] {ks=h; izca/kd bVkok ds gLrk{kj gSa] ftlds onkjk oknh dks lsok ls i`Fkd dj fn;k x;k] bl ij ,0th0bZ07 Mkyk x;k A eSaus cl dk HkkSfrd fujh{k.k fd;k vkSj tks esjh fjiksVZ esa vfu;ferrk;sa ik;h x;h og iw.kZ#i ls lgh gS A esjh egsUnz iky flag ls dksbZ jaft'k ugha Fkh A eSusa buls dHkh fdlh izdkj dh /ku dh ekWx ugha dh A ge yksx tks clksa dks fujh{k.k djrs gSa] og {ks=h; izca/kd ;k lgk;d izca/kd ds funsZ'kkuqlkj gh djrs gSa A tks tks yksx cl ds fujh{k.k ds nkSjku =qfV;kW ikrs gSa og ge yksx viuh fjiksVZ esa vafdr dj foHkkx esa ns nsrs gSa A ftjg Onkjk Vh0vkj0'kekZ A"

He also relied upon the statement of Traffic Inspector Sri S.P.Awasthi wherein he has stated that the petitioner had already realized the fare of 13 passengers but had not entered in the way bill and that the Traffic Inspector had not taken the evidence of those 13 passengers.

It further appears from record that in his statement Sri Awasthi, the Traffic Inspector had stated that 13 tickets which are said to have been issued by the petitioner did not carry his signatures, as such, he could not say as to whether the amount had been deposited with the department or not.

It appears that the petitioner had not raised any issue regarding discrepancy in the bus number which might be a typing error as it is clear from the evidence that checking staff had proved the documents before the Labour Court in respect of the bus which was being conducted by the petitioner and in which 13 passengers were found to be travelling withoug ticket whose fare had been realized by the petitioner but entries were not made in the way bill.

In so far as the question of carrying passengers without ticket is concerned, the Labour Court has disbelieved the evidence of the petitioner that he has not committed any misconduct. The parties had submitted their written arguments before the Labour Court. Hence if any point had not been raised by the petitioner in his arguments or written argument, he cannot cahlenged the same for the first time in the writ petition before this Court.  The Labour Court in paragraph 8 of the award has clearly held that :-

" 8. djk;s x;s lk{; vkSj i{kksa ds rdZ ls ;g Li"V gks x;k gS fd 10-1-87 dks ifjpkyd ds cl dk fujh{k.k gqvk Fkk vkSj 13 ;k=h fcuk fVdV ik;s x;s Fks A fookn ls lacaf/kr deZpkjh fdjk;k fdjk;k ys pqdk Fkk A bl ckr dks fl) djusa ds fy, fd cl esa brus gh ;k=h Fks ftudh izfof"B ekxZ i= esa Fkh deZpkjh us ;g dgk fd cl esa dsoy 44 ;k=h Fks A ekxZ i= esa tks fVdVsa vafdr gS mlls Li"B gS fd fujh{k.k ds le; cl esa 58 ;k=h] ,d ;k=h dk fVdV fujh{k.k ds le; ifjpkyd us cuk fn;k Fkk 13 dk ugha cuk;k Fkk] ;/kfi muls /kujkf'k yh xbZ FkhA mlus fujh{k.k dks >wB dgk gS vkSj igyh ckj ;g c;ku U;k;ky; ds le{k fn;k gs fd pwWfd mlus fujh{kd dks 100@& ugha fn;s blfy, mlds fo#) >wWBh fjiksVZ dh xbZ gS ! Mlus igyh ckj ;g Hkh dgk fd naMdrkZ vf/kdkjh Hkh mlls 10]1000@& naM u nsus ds fy, ekWx jgs Fks A deZpkjh dk lk{; fo'oluh; ugha gS vkSj bl U;k;ky; ds le{k mlus viuh lQkbZ esa cl pkyd dks ;g fl) djusa ds fy, izLrqr fd;k fd fujh{k.k ds le; dsoy 44 ;k+=h gh cl esaa Fks vkSj fujh{k.k drZk ls mlus dksbZ gkFkkikbZ ugha dh A ;g ckr deZpkjh usa Loa; Lohdkj dh gS fd fujh{k.kdrkZ ls mudh igys dksbZ jaft'k ugha Fkh blfy, ekXkZ i= ij vius gLrk{kj ls deZpkjh us bUdkj fd;k gS tks mlus viuh IyhMhax esa ugha dgk Fkk mldh ftEesnkjh Fkh fd U;k;ky; ds le{k ;g izekf.kr djrs fd ekxZ i= ij mlds gLrk{kj udyh gSa A"

Thereafter, the Labour Court arrived to the conclusion that the order of dismissal from service was just and proper and the petitioner was not entitled to any relief.  The operative portion of the award is as under :-

"QyLo#i esjk ,okMZ gS fd lsok;kstd Onkjk 21-12-88 ds vkns'k ls fuyEcudky dk vo'ks"k osru tCr djrs gq, deZpkjh dh c[kZLrxh iw.kZr% vkSfpR; iw.kZ gS vkSj fookn ls lacaf/kr dEkZpkjh fdlh fjyhQ dk vf/kdkjh ugha gS A

nksuksa i{k viuk viuk okn O;; Loa; ogu djsa

                                 g0 ts-,l-ih- ik.Ms;

                                 ihBklhu vf/kdkjh"

This Court is not sitting as an appellate Court over the findings of facts recorded by the Labour Court.  The petitioner has failed to establish that the findings of facts recorded by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court are, in any way, perverse or against the material on record.  Whatever arguments had been advanced by the petitioner before the Labour Court, were considered by the Labour Court and in case, the petitioner did not advance the  argument which is being raised for the first time before this Court, he has to blame himself as he cannot be permitted to take this plea for the first time in the writ petition.  Even otherwise, it is amply proved before the Labour Court that the bus in which 13 passengers were found to be travelling without ticket, was being conducted by the petitioner and that the petitioner had realized fare from them but did not make necessary entry in the way bill.

In view of what has been discussed above, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned award.  The writ petition deserves to be dismissed as no case for interference in writ jurisdiction is made out.

Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Dated 24.5.2007



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.