HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 13596 of 2020 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 Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastav Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sunil Kumar Misra Dharmendra Kumar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U P And Another .....Respondent(s) 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punishments were further reduced so much as that punishment of withholding two yearly increments with cumulative effect was revoked, whereas other two punishments were confirmed. 7.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 2 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. April 1, 2026 N. Sinha WRIA No. 13596 of 2020 3 (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.) Digitally signed by :- NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad