IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.13719 of 2025 Date of Decision: 21.11.2025 _______________________________________________________ Pawan Kumar-II …….Petitioner Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dogra, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs:- “(i) That the impugned suspension order dated 30.07.2025 (Annexure P-2) & subsequent charge-sheet memorandum dated 06.08.2025 (Annexure P-3) passed by the respondent No.2 may kindly be quashed and set- aside being malafide, arbitrary, unjustified & violative of the instruction/orders of the respondent-Corporation as contained in Annexure P-5 and P-6 by issuing writ of certiorari; (ii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may also be issued, directing the respondents not to take the cognizance of the report/remarks given by the respondent No.3 on way bill dated 20.07.2025 (Annexure P-1) keeping in view the policy decision taken by the respondent No.1 vide Annexure P-6 dated 06.09.2007 and accordingly the petitioner be 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 absolved/exonerated of the charges famed against him without any justification.” 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dogra, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that though petitioner herein, who prior to issuance of suspension order dated 30.07.2025 (Annexure P-2), had been working as a Conductor in Himachal Road Transport Corporation, could not have been subjected to disciplinary proceedings for his having allegedly not issued tickets to four of the passengers, but yet the respondents ignoring notification dated 6th September, 2007(Annexure P-6), issued by the Managing Director, Himachal Road Transport Corporation, not only subjected the petitioner to disciplinary proceedings, but also illegally placed him under suspension vide order dated 30.07.2025 (Annexure P-2). 3. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, are that the petitioner herein, who was initially appointed as a Conductor on contract basis on 05.07.2018 and was subsequently regularized in the month of November, 2020 was served with a charge-sheet memorandum dated 06.08.2025, alleging therein that while he was deployed as a Conductor in Bus No.HP-65- 3 0820 en route from Mandi to Chhatri on 20.07.2025, four passengers were found travelling without tickets. It is alleged that the passengers had travelled 11 Km without tickets, thereby causing financial loss to the tune of Rs. 420/- to the respondent- Corporation. On account of dereliction of duty, disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965, came to be initiated against the petitioner. 4. In nutshell, the grouse of the petitioner is that once bus was found overloaded at the time of inspection by checking team, no disciplinary proceedings could have been initiated against the petitioner in terms of notification dated 6th September, 2007, issued by the Managing Director, Himachal Road Transport Corporation, wherein it has been categorically provided that in case, the bus has passengers more than the seating capacity and any passenger is found travelling without tickets, then 10 times fine be imposed on the passenger, but in such cases, no action is required to be taken against the conductor. However, if a ticketless passenger is found in under- load bus i.e below the seating capacity, then appropriate action be taken against the conductor. 4 5. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submitted that since 78 passengers were found travelling in the bus having a seating capacity of 36, no disciplinary proceedings could have been initiated against the petitioner, rather four passengers, who were found travelling without tickets, should have been made to pay four times the ticket amount as fine. 6. Pursuant to the notice issued in the instant proceedings, respondents have filed reply, wherein the facts, as have been taken note hereinabove, have been not disputed. Learned counsel for the respondents though fairly admitted that at the time of inspection, 78 passengers were travelling in the bus having seating capacity of 36, but he submitted that four persons, who were found without tickets, stated before the checking team that they had paid Rs. 420/- to the conductor, but were not issued tickets. 7. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that at the time of checking of the bus in question, 78 passengers were found sitting in the bus having capacity of 36, meaning thereby the bus was over loaded. It is also not in dispute that four passengers were found without tickets, who 5 allegedly disclosed to the checking team that they had paid Rs. 420/- to the conductor, but he refused to issue the tickets. 8. Once notification dated 6th September 2007, issued by the Managing Director, Himachal Road Transport Corporation, clearly provides that in case, the bus has passengers more than the seating capacity and any passenger is found travelling without ticket, then 10 times fine be imposed on the passenger, but in such cases, no action is required to be taken against the conductor, there appears to be merit in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that no disciplinary proceedings ought to have been initiated against the petitioner. 9. Though, it has been claimed at the behest of the respondents that four passengers, who were found ticketless gave a statement to the checking team that despite their having paid sum of Rs. 420/-, no tickets were issued to them, but no cogent and convincing evidence in that regard has been placed on record. In such like situation, it was the bounden duty of the checking team to record the statements of the passengers, who claimed to have paid amount for the tickets. Otherwise also, it is 6 admitted case of the respondents that no statements of such persons were ever recorded. 10. Though, learned counsel for the respondents attempted to argue that statements, if any, of four passengers could have been recorded at the time of disciplinary proceedings, but fact remains that before initiating any such proceedings, the department is required to satisfy itself with regard to cognizable case, if any, against the petitioner, who otherwise in terms of notification dated 6th September 2007, ought not have been subjected to disciplinary proceedings, especially when there is no dispute that at the time of checking of the bus, bus was overloaded. Moreover, careful perusal of notification dated 6th September, 2007 leaves no scope for the respondents to initiate disciplinary proceedings in a case where bus was found overloaded at the time of checking, rather in such like situation, passenger found to be travelling without tickets can only be made to pay 10 times fine of the actual amount of the ticket. 11. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly same is allowed. The impugned suspension order dated 30.07.2025 7 (Annexure P-2) and charge sheet memorandum dated 06.08.2025 (Annexure P-3) are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to resume his duties forthwith. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 1. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge November 21,2025 (shankar)