Allahabad High Court
DHARMENDRA KUMARversusSTATE OF U P AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
The court reduced the token recovery penalty to Rs. 25,000 and disposed of the writ petition with this modification.
Summary
The petitioner, a bus conductor employed by the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC), was disciplined for a low load factor that allegedly caused a revenue loss of Rs. 3,22,123. After a charge sheet and inquiry, he was initially penalised with a token recovery of Rs. 50,000 and a censure, along with a suspension of two yearly increments, which was later partially revoked by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner challenged the remaining penalties—censure and the token recovery—through a writ petition, arguing that the low load factor was due to poor bus conditions and that a warning, not a penalty, should suffice. The respondent contended that the petitioner had not challenged the original punishment order and that the penalty was already lenient. The court held that, given the petitioner’s improved conduct and the already modest penalty, the token recovery could be reduced to Rs. 25,000, ordering any excess amount to be refunded, and disposed of the writ petition with this modification.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellate order reducing the disciplinary punishment can be challenged by a writ petition.
- Whether the token recovery penalty of Rs. 50,000 imposed for low load factor is legally sustainable.
- Whether the token recovery penalty can be further reduced in view of the petitioner’s improved conduct.
Subjects
- disciplinary proceedings
- token recovery
- low load factor
- conduct of conductor
- writ petition
- penalty reduction
- administrative law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 13596 of 2020
Dharmendra Kumar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U P And Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastav
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sunil Kumar Misra
Court No. - 32
HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. Heard Dr. R.K. Srivastav, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri S.K.
Misra, learned counsel for respondents at length.
2. Petitioner a bus conductor with respondent-U.P.S.R.T.C. has faced
disciplinary proceedings initiated through a charge sheet dated 15.02.2019
that upon consideration of bus load factor from July, 2018 to January,
2019, it was found to be on very lower side and accordingly, a calculation
was made whereby a loss of Rs. 3,22,123/- was determined.
3. Petitioner has not submitted any reply to charge sheet though he
appeared and has cross examined author of report. Later on, inquiry report
was submitted wherein petitioner was found guilty that due to low load
factor, he has caused revenue loss to Corporation of Rs. 3,22,123/- as well
as that he has not worked diligently.
4. In aforesaid circumstances, Disciplinary Authority issued a show cause
notice dated 21.10.2019 along with a copy of charge sheet and after
reminders, he submitted his reply dated 18.11.2019 that due to bad
condition of buses, passengers have opted not to travel and it was the
reason of low load factor, therefore, in a way, he has not denied report.
5. The Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 31.12.2019 found that
charges were proved, however, substantially reduced the proposed
punishment and granted opportunity to petitioner to improve his work and
passed punishment order whereby Rs. 50,000/- was fixed as token
recovery towards loss of Corporation as well as a censure was awarded
WRIA No. 13596 of 2020
2
and a punishment of withhold two yearly increments with cumulative
effect was also passed.
6. The petitioner thereafter filed a Writ Petition No. 4337/2020 which was
disposed of vide order dated 17.06.2020 that petitioner can submit his
representation before Appellate Authority. Accordingly, he submitted a
representation which was decided by Appellate Authority vide order
dated 30.09.2020 whereby above referred punishments were further
reduced so much as that punishment of withholding two yearly
increments with cumulative effect was revoked, whereas other two
punishments were confirmed.
7. The petitioner has filed present writ petition only against an order dated
30.09.2020 making a challenge to remaining part of punishment i.e.
censure and order of token recovery of Rs. 50,000/-. The punishment
order is not under challenge.
8. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that there are various circulars
issued by respondent-U.P.S.R.T.C. that even reasons behind the low load
factor can be taken note of as well as instead of imposing penalty, a
warning may be issued though no such argument was placed to dispute
the effect of factual basis of report of low load factor.
9. Learned counsel for respondent-Corporation submits that petitioner has
not challenged the punishment order and has challenged only the
appellate order, therefore, writ petition in present form does not survive.
He further submits that Disciplinary Authority has now already taken a
lenient view by making an order of token recovery of Rs. 50,000/-
whereas revenue loss was of more than 3 lakhs and further the Appellate
Authority has revoked other two punishments.
10. I have considered above submissions and perused the records.
11. In present case, respondent-Corporation has already taken a lenient
view by imposing a penalty of token recovery of Rs. 50,000/- and since
details of report, so far as low load factor is concerned, are not much
disputed either in writ petition or during argument.
WRIA No. 13596 of 2020
3
12. The punishment of withholding two yearly increment with cumulative
effect has already been withdrawn by the Appellate Authority with an
observation that petitioner will improve his conduct.
13. The respondent-Corporation has not placed any subsequent
misconduct or complaint of low load factor despite this writ petition is
pending for last more than 5 years, therefore, there is an presumption in
favour of petitioner that now he is working diligently on the post of
Conductor.
14. An argument of learned counsel for petitioner that order of recovery
can not be passed on a ground of low load factor has no legal basis since
circulars placed on record provide that a disciplinary proceedings initiated
if a Conductor has repeatedly carried low load factor, therefore, on basis
of material available, there is no case for interference with proved charges
of low load factor.
15. Now only question left whether punishment of token recovery of Rs.
50,000/- can still be reduced considering that petitioner is now
discharging duties diligently, therefore, in the interest of justice, and to
encourage petitioner to work more diligently, token recovery amount of
Rs. 50,000/- is reduced to Rs. 25,000/- and if recovery is still not effective
shall be effected within four weeks only to an extent of Rs. 25,000/-.
16. If the recovery of Rs. 50,000/- has already effected, respondent-
Corporation will refund Rs. 25,000/- in equal five installments in next
five months.
17. Writ petition stands disposed of with above modification in impugned
order.
(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
April 1, 2026
N. Sinha
Digitally signed by :-
NIRMAL SINHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…