Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:115179 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13268 of 2018 Petitioner :- Sachin Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Misra,Rang Nath Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mritunjay Mohan Sahai Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri Rang Nath Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for Respondents-2 to 5. 2. Petitioner, a Bus Conductor, was terminated after an inquiry vide order dated 27.08.2009 which was challenged by way of filing a departmental appeal. The appeal was allowed vide order dated 10.12.2009 with certain directions and observations and relevant part of order is reproduced hereinafter: "अपपील स्तर पर अपपीलकतरर्ता दररर अअंककत उक्त आधरररों आकदि पर व प्रकरण पतरवलपी मम उपलब्ध अकभिललेखरों कर समपीकरत्मक कवश्ललेषण एवअं अध्ययन करनले कले पश्चरतत् यह परयर जरतर हहै कक जरजाँच अधधकररपी कले स्तर पर जरजाँच कले दिदौररन ररपपोरर्ताकतरर्ता सले ररपपोरर्ता कपो पपुकष्टि तपो कररयपी गयपी हहै, परन्तपु ररपपोरर्ताकतरर्ता ककी उक्त सरक्ष्य पर अपपीलकतरर्ता कले हस्तरकर मदौजजूदि नहपी हहै धजससले यह स्पष्टि हहै कक अपपीलकतरर्ता ककी अनपुपसस्स्थिकत मम ररपपोरर्ताकतरर्ता कर बयरन अअंककत ककयर गयर हहै तस्थिर अन्य सहयपोगपी कनरपीकक शपी डपी०एन० कतपरठपी कले दररर जरजाँच कले दिदौररन ररपपोरर्ता ककी पपुकष्टि भिपी नहहीं ककी गयपी हहै और न हपी अपपीलकतरर्ता कपो उनसले प्रकतपरपीकण कर अवसर प्ररप्त हहआ हहै। इस प्रकरर अपपीलकतरर्ता ककी अनपुपसस्स्थिकत मम ररपपोरर्ता ककी पपुकष्टि तस्थिर अन्य सहयपोगपी कनरपीकक कले दररर ररपपोरर्ता ककी पपुकष्टि न हपोनले एवअं अपपीलकतरर्ता कपो अपनपी कनदिर्दोकषतर प्रमरकणत करनले हलेतपु प्रकतपरपीकण कर अवसर न प्ररप्त हपोनले कले आधरर पर जरजाँच करयर्तावरहपी कनयमरनपुसरर कनष्पक जरजाँच प्रकक्रियर कले तहत सम्परकदित नहहीं ककी गयपी हहै अस्थिरर्तात दिपोषपजूणर्ता जरजाँच प्रकक्रियर कले आधरर पर जरजाँच अधधकररपी दररर अपपीलकतरर्ता कले कवरूद्ध कनकरलले गयले जरजाँच कनष्कषर्ता सले दिण्डरधधकररपी दररर व्यक्त सहमकत कले आधरर पर कनगर्तात कररण बतरओअं नपोकरस मम प्रस्तरकवत दिण्ड व उसकले अनपुरूप परररत दिण्डरवलेश सअं02228 कदिनरअंक 27-08-2009 कवधध सअंगत नहपी परयर जरतर हहै। अपपीलकतरर्ता दररर उक्त दिण्डरदिलेश कले कवरूद्ध शम न्यरयरलय मम वरदि यपोधजत ककयले जरनले पर कनणर्ताय कवपक मम (अपपीलकतरर्ता कले पक मम) हपोनले ककी प्रबल सम्भिरवनरओअं कले दृकष्टिगत रखतले हहयले अपपील स्तर पर परररत दिण्डरदिलेश कदिनरअंक 27-08-2009 कनरस्त करतले हहयले कनम्न शतर्दोअं कले तहत अपपीलकतरर्ता कपो सलेवर मम बहरल ककयर जरतर हहै:- 1:- सलेवर सले बरहर रहनले ककी अवधध कर कपोई भिपी वलेतन /भितले एवअं आधस्थिर्ताक कहत लरभि अनपुमन्य नहपी हरोंगले परन्तपु कनरअंतरतर बनपी रहलेगपी। 2:- जजॉच कले स्तर सले प्रकरण मम पपुननः कनयमरनपुसरर कनष्पक कवभिरगपीय जरजाँच एवअं अनपुशरसकनक प्रकक्रियर पजूणर्ता कर गपुण-दिपोष मलेरले आधरर पर सकम अधधकररपी कले स्तर सले असन्तम कनणर्ताय धलयर जरयलेगर। उपरपोक्तरनपुसरर अपपील स्स्थिल पर सलेवर मम बहरलपी कले फलस्वरूप अपपीलकतरर्ता ककी तहैनरतपी कर आदिलेश वतर्तामरन मम प्रभिरवपी व्यवस्स्थिर कले तहत प्रधरन प्रबन्धक (अनपुशरसकनक) पररवहन कनगम मपुख्यरलय लखनऊ कले स्तर सले पपृस्थिक सले परररत ककयर जरयलेगर।" 3. In pursuance of above referred order, fresh inquiry was conducted and since one of the member of inspection squad has expired, therefore, other member was called to record his statement, however, admittedly he does not appeared and only on basis of statement given in earlier round of inquiry by the petitioner, a fresh inquiry report was submitted holding him guilty and thereafter petitioner was again terminated vide order dated 25.03.2015 and petitioner’s appeal as well as revision thereof were also rejected vide orders dated 22.05.2015 and 24.04.2018. These orders are impugned in present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner by referring the direction passed by Appellate Authority order dated 10.12.2009 in first round of litigation submits that the directions passed in aforesaid order were not complied with and in absence of statement of any of the member of inspection squad, the inspection report could not be proved and since no passenger has come forward to record statement, therefore, very basis of inquiry report does not survive and petitioner may be reinstated. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondents has tried to convince the Court, however, on basis of record and when confronted with fresh inquiry report, since statement of member of inspection squad was not recorded, he could not dispute that directions passed by Appellate Authority was not complied with. 6. In view of above, the Court is of the opinion that Appellate as well as Revisional Authority ought to have taken note of above referred submission that whether the direction passed in appellate order, in earlier round of litigation, was complied or not. Therefore, the impugned revisional order dated 24.04.2018 and order dated 22.05.2015 are hereby set aside and matter is remitted back to Appellate Authority to pass a fresh order within six weeks from today, taking note of above observations. 7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Order Date :- 16.7.2025 AK Digitally signed by :- AWADESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- AWADESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad