AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Shri Sudhir Kumar Misra, learned counsel for the appellant, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4.
This special appeal has been filed by the appellant under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 challenging the judgment and order dated 28.09.2026 passed by the Writ Court in Writ-A No. 9186 of 2026 (Narayan Singh versus State of U.P. and Others).
The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant was engaged as a contractual Conductor by the Lucknow City Transport Services Limited, an instrumentality of State. An incident is alleged to have taken place on 05.05.2026, when the bus, bearing No. U.P. 32 RN 3199 with the appellant as Conductor, was being plied and was stopped by the checking authority. According to them out of twenty six passengers traveling in the bus seven were without ticket. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 11.05.2026 containing the aforesaid allegations and asking him to respond. The appellant-petitioner responded vide his reply dated 20.05.2026, wherein he categorically stated that till the stoppage of the bus by the checking authority, all the passengers who were within the bus had been issued tickets but taking advantage of the entry of the officers of the corporation, seven other passengers also boarded the bus, meaning thereby, according to the appellant-petitioner, there was nobody who was already traveling on the bus who had not been issued ticket.
It appears that after submission of the reply dated 20.05.2026, the concerned authority instituted an inquiry vide letter dated 03.07.2026, nominating the Senior Centre Incharge, Dubagga Depot as the Inquiry Officer, who submitted his report on 10.08.2026 along with the entire records. According to the order impugned before the Writ Court, by which the contract of the appellant-petitioner has been terminated, on a perusal of the same, the said authority found that on 22.07.2026, the appellant-petitioner had informed the Inquiry Officer that he will not give any statement unless all the evidence is given to him and accordingly, the next date in the inquiry was fixed as 31.07.2026 on which he was given all the relevant documents including a video clip, thereafter, the inquiry proceedings were completed on 10.08.2026 after affording hearing to the appellant-petitioner. The inquiry report submitted thereafter found the appellant-petitioner guilty, however, the date of the inquiry report is not disclosed in the order impugned before the Writ Court, which is dated 13.08.2026, nor was it annexed with the order of the termination of contract.
The contention of the appellant's counsel is twofold firstly; a show cause notice was issued and it was not clear as what was the charge levelled against the appellant-petitioner, secondly; the reply of the appellant-petitioner has nowhere been considered by the authority who has passed the order dated 13.08.2026 terminating the contract. There is no discussion of the charges, the evidence against the appellant, the findings of the inquiry report, if any, in the context of the reply submitted by the appellant nor as to why the reply submitted by the appellant was not acceptable and a cryptic order has been passed merely referring to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of N.W. Karnatka R.T.C. Vs. H.H. Pujar reported in AIR 2008 SC 3060, wherein it has been held that when the charge of carrying passengers without issuing ticket is proved, then the only punishment, which could be imposed is dismissal, however, this is not preceded by any discussion of the relevant aspects.
On being confronted, Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation submitted that the appointment of the appellant-petitioner was a contractual appointment. He further submitted that though the agreement is not on record, invariably there is an arbitration clause in such agreements, which should have been invoked, therefore, the writ petition itself was not maintainable in the first place and for the same reasons, the appeal is not maintainable. According to him, from a reading of the order dated 13.08.2026, it is apparent that the principles of natural justice have been complied to the list considering the status of the employees as a contractual employee. Not only a show cause notice was issued but an inquiry was also held, therefore, we should not interfere with the order of the Writ Court in an intra Court appeal, he thus prayed that the appeal may be dismissed.
We have gone through the impugned judgment, learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that it lacks merit, however, in the body of the judgment passed by him, he has nowhere considered the pleas raised by the appellant-petitioner in the writ petition on the merits of the matter and apparently, the finding that the principles of natural justice were complied is also erroneous. The reason for our conclusion aforesaid is that the appellant-petitioner had submitted a reply to the show cause notice specifically asserting that all those passengers, who were already on the bus at the time it was stopped by the checking authority, had been issued the ticket but while the checking authorities were entering the bus taking advantage of the aforesaid situation seven other passengers entered the bus and therefore, to say that these seven passengers did not have a ticket is absolutely without any basis. Irrespective of the fact as to whether the defence of the appellant-petitioner was right or wrong at least its consideration was required by the authority who has passed the order dated 13.08.2026, more so because after submission of the show cause notice an inquiry was instituted and the Inquiry Officer firstly submitted a report on 22.07.2026, which clearly shows that the appellant-petitioner had not been provided any evidence and that is why he had taken the defence that he was not able to make any statement, accordingly, all the documents were provided to the appellant-petitioner on 31.07.2026, thereafter the inquiry was conducted and concluded on 10.08.2026 and in the report of the Inquiry Officer, the appellant was found guilty but on a perusal of the order dated 13.08.2026 there is no discussion whatsoever as to what were the findings in the inquiry report, neither the charge against the appellant-petitioner has been discussed nor his reply has been discussed nor any reason has been given as to why reply was not found satisfactory, if so, what was the basis for the same. In fact, there is no reasoning or conclusion on this issue relating to the defence of the appellant-petitioner, nor is there any discussion of any evidence which may have been collected during inquiry on the basis of which the charge may have been proved.
The officer who has passed the order dated 13.08.2026 has not complied with the minimal requirements of principles of natural justice, which required him to discuss the aforesaid aspects and give reasons in support of his decision to cancel the contract. It appears that he has simply presumed the guilt of the appellant-petitioner. The reasons, which may have prevailed in his mind, should have been recorded in black and white in his order. This is not a case where an order terminating the contract has been passed simplicitor but one where the contract has been terminated on the basis of certain allegations and therefore, stigma is attached, as such there had to be compliance of the principles of natural justice, which has not been done in this case. Merely, because the appellant-petitioner was a contractual employee did not mean that the respondent-corporation was free to terminate the contract at will without giving any reason and without considering the response of the appellant-petitioner when such action was stigmatic. The learned Single Judge has missed the woods for the trees by omitting to consider the aforesaid relevant aspects and yet observing that the petition lacks merit. Such an observation could not have been made without considering all relevant aspects within the constraints of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
In view of the above discussion, the plea of Shri Ratnesh Chandra, Advocate, that there is an arbitration clause, which should have been invoked, is not acceptable. The availability of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar as it is more of a self imposed restriction based on a consideration of the facts. In the facts of this case, the remedy of arbitration would hardly be an efficacious remedy where there is an apparent error and it was a gross violation of principles of natural justice. The order dated 13.08.2026 does not take into consideration, the relevant aspects and suffers from gross non-application of mind to the same. After the records/evidence were given to the appellant-petitioner, it is nobody's case that he did not participate in the inquiry, rather he appeared and was personally heard but there is nothing mentioned in the order dated 13.08.2026 as to the stand taken by him in the show cause notice and during the inquiry, there is no discussion of it, nor is the inquiry report appended with the order dated 13.08.2026.
The learned Single Judge having committed an error and in view of the findings hereinabove, not only is the judgment of the Writ Court but the order impugned before it dated 13.08.2026 is also liable to be quashed.
We, accordingly, quash the judgment and order dated 28.09.2026 passed by the Writ Court in Writ-A No. 9186 of 2026 as well as the order impugned therein dated 13.08.2026. We grant liberty to the competent authority to pass a fresh order, keeping in mind the observations made hereinabove.
The special appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.