LIVE Online Course on NDPS by Riva Pocha and Adv. Taraq Sayed. Starting from 24th May. Register Now!!
The Indian Constitution Courses

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

The U.P.S.R.T.C had removed a conductor from the job due to allegations of misconduct

Esheta Lunkad ,
  14 September 2020       Share Bookmark

Court :

Brief :

Citation :
Petitioner: Krishnapal Singh Respondent:Managing Director U.P.S.R.T.C & 2 ors Citation: 2015 Vol 0 Supreme (Allahabad) 1445


Rohit Ranjan Agarwal


Whether the onus of proving the misconduct on the part of the conductor lies with the disciplinary committee?


  • Petitioner was appointed as Conductor in Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation whose rules are governed by the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees Service Regulations 1981& he was removed from service.
  • Petitioner was a conductor working on the bus going through the local route of SyanaHapur Marg.
  • Ticket checker came on the bus who then found out that 21 people had not taken their ticket.
  • The conductor was fired from the job.

Appellant’s contentions:

  • The counsel for the petitioner stated that 6 family members had boarded the bus & the head of which refused to pay for the ticket because he stated that he was a government employee, so his family shouldn’t have to pay.
  • 9 students had also been on that bus who ran away when they saw the TC.
  • And the other remaining were issued tickets on plain papers because the Electronic Ticketing Machine (E.T.M) was not working.
  • The statements of the passengers were also not recorded nor was the cash of the conductor checked by the inspecting team, & the onus lies on the respondent organisation to prove the misconduct of the petitioner and not vice versa.

Respondent’s contentions:

  • The TC found that that 21 people on the bus were without their respective tickets and it was a high amount which cannot be tolerated.
  • The petitioner has had a history of allowing people on the bus without paying for the ticket.
  • The petitioner was removed from his job because the disciplinary committee found the charges proved against the petitioner & he was removed from service.
  • Thus, rightly his punishment for forfeiting balance of pay was passed.
  • Under Sec 124 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988, every person has to pay for the pass or ticket for travelling on a government transportation service.

Final judgement:

  • Justice was not given to the petitioner at every stage.
  • Only on the basis of suspicion and presumption, he has been removed from his post.
  • An enquiry officer shall carry out the entire exercise again in a period of 4 months after this judgement is passed
  • The writ petition is partly allowed.

Enroll the Course on CPC by Mr. S.C Virmani:
Click Here

"Loved reading this piece by Esheta Lunkad?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"

Published in Others
Views : 275


Latest Judgments

More »

Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query