The Allahabad High Court has declined to interfere with the dismissal of a state transport bus conductor found to have collected fares from passengers without issuing tickets, holding that the disciplinary process was fair, lawful, and beyond the scope of judicial second-guessing.
The ruling came from Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai, who upheld the removal of Mohd Arif, a conductor formerly employed by the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. The Court found no procedural lapse, bias, or lack of authority in the orders passed against him.
The incident traces back to March 9, 1990. During a routine inspection on a route between Renukot and Robertsganj, officials discovered that 30 out of 83 passengers were travelling without tickets, despite having paid a total fare of ₹285 to the conductor. A departmental inquiry followed, culminating in his removal from service in May 2002. His internal appeal met the same fate later that year.
Challenging the termination, the conductor argued that the inquiry was flawed—claiming key inspection witnesses were not examined, the punishment order was issued by an incompetent authority, and that the action was selective since the bus driver faced no charges.
The Court was unconvinced. Records showed that the conductor himself had urged the inquiry officer to conclude proceedings on the basis of material already on record, effectively waiving any insistence on examining additional witnesses. Having taken that position, the Court held, he could not later complain of their absence.
Justice Rai also reiterated a settled principle: departmental inquiries are not criminal trials, and rigid rules of evidence do not apply. On the question of authority, the Court noted that the Regional Manager who imposed the penalty was senior to the appointing authority and was therefore empowered to do so.
Allegations of bias were brushed aside as speculative. The mere fact that the inspection team did not accept the conductor’s explanation, the Court said, could not by itself establish prejudice.
Most significantly, the judgment underscored the narrow limits of judicial review in service matters. Under Article 226, the High Court does not re-appreciate evidence or reassess guilt; it examines only whether the decision-making process was lawful and fair.
Finding no breach of natural justice or legal infirmity, the Court dismissed the petition—closing the chapter on a dispute that began with a handful of unissued tickets and stretched across decades.
