Narayan Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. U.P. State Road Transport, Lko And 3 Others

A.F.R.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 498 of 2026
Narayan Singh

.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. U.P. State Road
Transport, Lko And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Sudhir Kumar Misra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ratnesh Chandra
Court No. - 1
HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.
1. 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.
2. 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) .
3. 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

SPLA No. 498 of 2026
2
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.
4. 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.
5. 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

SPLA No. 498 of 2026
3
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.
6. 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.
7. 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

SPLA No. 498 of 2026
4
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.
8. 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,

SPLA No. 498 of 2026
5
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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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

SPLA No. 498 of 2026
6
liberty to the competent authority to pass a fresh order, keeping in
mind the observations made hereinabove.
12. The special appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
(Manjive Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)
November 2, 2026
Satish
Digitally signed by :-
SATISH KUMAR BHARATI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench