Allahabad HC Quashes Contract Conductor’s Termination, Allows Fresh Order After Authority Ignored His Claim That 7 Unticketed Passengers Boarded As Inspectors Entered

In brief

The question

1. Whether the termination order was sustainable when it did not address the charge, evidence, inquiry findings, or the appellant’s defence, despite the stigmatic nature of the termination

The court held

The Court allowed the special appeal, quashed both the Writ Court’s judgment dated 28 September 2026 and the termination order dated 13 August 2026, and granted liberty to the competent authority to pass a fresh order in light of the Court’s observations.

01Facts

The appellant, a contractual conductor employed by Lucknow City Transport Services Ltd., was accused of carrying seven passengers without tickets.

¶ 3

In his reply to the show-cause notice, he asserted that all passengers on the bus when it was stopped had tickets, and that the seven passengers boarded while the checking officials were entering the bus.

¶ 3

An inquiry followed; after the appellant was provided documents and a video clip, the Inquiry Officer found him guilty. The authority terminated his contract by an order dated 13 August 2026, which did not discuss the inquiry findings, the evidence, or the appellant’s defence.

¶ 4, 7

The Writ Court dismissed his challenge. In this special appeal, the Division Bench considered the adequacy of the termination order and the Corporation’s objection that an arbitration clause provided an alternative remedy.

¶ 6–10

02Issues

i.1. Whether the termination order was sustainable when it did not address the charge, evidence, inquiry findings, or the appellant’s defence, despite the stigmatic nature of the termination

¶ 7–8

ii.2. Whether the availability of arbitration barred the appellant from seeking relief under Article 226 in the circumstances of the case

¶ 9

iii.3. Whether the Writ Court erred in dismissing the petition without considering the appellant’s material contentions

¶ 7, 10

03Law Applied

Under Article 226, judicial review may be exercised where a decision is affected by a gross violation of natural justice or non-application of mind; the availability of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar, but a matter of judicial discretion assessed in light of the circumstances.

¶ 9–10

Where termination of a contractual engagement is based on allegations and carries stigma, the authority must consider the employee’s response and record reasons supporting its decision; contractual status does not permit termination at will without such consideration.

¶ 8

The authority relied on N.W. Karnataka R.T.C. v. H.H. Pujar, AIR 2008 SC 3060, for the proposition that dismissal may be the appropriate punishment when carrying passengers without tickets is proved, but the Division Bench held that this citation did not replace the need to assess the evidence and the appellant’s defence in the present case.

¶ 5, 7

04Reasoning

The appellant’s explanation—that the passengers without tickets boarded only as the checking officials entered—was material and required consideration, whether or not it was ultimately accepted.

¶ 3, 7

Although an inquiry was held and the appellant was heard, the termination order did not identify the evidence relied on, state the inquiry findings, address his response, or explain why his defence was rejected.

¶ 7, 9

Because the termination was based on allegations and was stigmatic, those omissions breached the minimum requirements of natural justice and demonstrated non-application of mind.

¶ 8

The arbitration objection did not warrant dismissal of the writ petition given the apparent procedural error and gross natural-justice violation.

¶ 9

The Writ Court likewise erred by dismissing the petition without addressing these material matters.

¶ 7, 10