HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT – A No. - 29707 of 2008 Bardani Lal …..Petitioners(s) Versus State of U.P. and Others …..Respondents(s) Counsel for Petitioners(s) : Bipin Bihari, P.Pandey, Rajesh Kumar, Rakesh Pande, S, M.A.Abdy, S.M.A.Abidi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Amit Manohar, Anuj Srivastava, Sunil Kumar Judgment Reserved on 11.9.2025 Delivered on 23. 9.2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. 1. Heard Sri S.M.A.Abidi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner, a Conductor has suffered with a disciplinary proceeding that on 8.5.2005, an inspection was conducted by a Flying Squad of a bus (petitioner was conductor of the said bus) that out of 75 passengers, 21 passengers were travelling without ticket. (7 passengers were travelling from Indore to Kanpur and rest 14 passengers were travelling from Maxi to Sazapur) with a specific allegation that petitioner has 2 WRIT – A No. - 29707 of 2008 collected money for tickets from these passengers, but had not issued them tickets. 3. In the Inspection Report dated 9.5.2005, Vishram Singh, the Traffic Inspector has reported that during inspection, the petitioner has objected inspection process and misbehaved with inspecting staff and has snatched margpatra just before, Traffic Inspector was about to write details of total number of passengers travelling and number of passengers travelling without tickets. 4. Per contra, the petitioner has come up with a case that at the time of inspection, only 59 passengers were travelling and he has noted on the margpatra that tickets were issued to 54 passengers and remaining 5 passengers were travelling without ticket (three police constables along with their two associates). The Traffic Inspector has asked for bribe and when the petitioner refused to pay the same, absolutely a false report was submitted. The petitioner has already issued tickets to all passengers. 5. On the very next date i.e. 9.5.2005, the petitioner has intimated in writing to the Assistant Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C. Fazalganj Depot Kanpur, District Kanpur Nagar about above referred occurrence. 6. In aforesaid circumstances, a charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner on 13.5.2005 that not only he was carrying passengers without tickets but has not issued tickets despite collecting the amount from them and has also misbehaved with inspection staff and has snatched original copy of the margpatra. 3 WRIT – A No. - 29707 of 2008 7. The petitioner has submitted reply to the charge-sheet on 17.5.2005, wherein instead of making specific reply to the charge-sheet, he has asked for documents and thereafter submitted an additional reply on 6.6.2005, narrating defence as mentioned hereinbefore and communicated earlier to Assistant Regional Manager. 8. On basis of documents available on records of present writ petition, it is clear that petitioner despite information has not appeared during disciplinary proceedings except on 15.7.2005. 9. During inquiry the petitioner has examined Sri Ram Khelawan, Clerk deputed for collecting fare from the petitioner, who stated that on 9.5.2005 he received Rs.25,083/- from the petitioner, but he did not receive tickets no.3714832-34 and on inquiry, the petitioner informed that said tickets were torn and kept by the checking staff. 10. Petitioner thereafter submitted an application on 22.7.2005 that certain documents were not provided to him. On 22.7.2005, Sri Vishram Singh, Traffic Inspector appeared before the Inquiry Officer, but petitioner remained absent. Said Officer has recorded his statement and Inquiry Officer has also asked questions on basis of written reply submitted by the petitioner. 11. A specific question, about snatching of margpatra was also asked, to which said officer reiterated same version as mentioned in the Inspection Report and denied allegations of petitioner in specific words. 4 WRIT – A No. - 29707 of 2008 12. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Inquiry Officer submitted a Inquiry Report dated 23.7.2005 that all charges were found to be proved. Consideration of statements as well as questions put by the Inquiry Officer and their respective replies were also dealt with. It was also noted that petitioner has opted not to cross- examine the witnesses despite being present during proceedings. He also failed to engage any person to present his defence despite taking time for same. A copy of the Inquiry Report was submitted to the petitioner along with a Show Cause notice dated 12.12.2005 by the Disciplinary Authority. 13. Petitioner has submitted a detail reply on 19.9.2006 to the show cause notice, reiterating his earlier defence. 14. Subsequently, the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 17.1.2007 after considering the inquiry report and a detail reply submitted by the petitioner by a considered and reasoned order dated 9.2.2007 awarded a major punishment i.e. ‘Removal from Service’ on the petitioner. Relevant part of said order is reproduced hereinafter: “आरोपी पीरिरोचा लक द्वा रो क रोण बता ओं नोटिस क लिलखिता उत्तरो अपीनो पीत्र टिनो क 23.09.06 द्वा रो प्रेषि!ता टिकया गया खि$समें& उसक द्वा रो अवगता करो या टिक रिरोपी(कता (ओं द्वा रो क्षेत्रया प्रेबन्धक स लिमेंलकरो प्रे र्थी- क षिवरूद्ध !डयात्र क ताहता रिरोपी( क2 गई आरोपी द्वा रो वह4 ताथ्या अपीनो आरोपी पीत्र क उत्तरो में& भी अटिकता टिकया गया ह7 तार्थी इस प्रेक रो क अन्या आक्षेपी आरोपी द्वा रो लग या गया ह7 $7स इपी मेंशीनो& द्वा रो रिरोपी( इपी करोनो , तात्क लनो क्षेत्रया प्रेबन्धक द्वा रो स् फ क रो में& ब7ठा लनो क7 शी ब7ग अपीनो कब्$ में& ल लनो टिडपी में& चाटिक ग लिलषिपीक श्री रो में खिल वनो द्वा रो आरोपी क2 पी@रो4 $ में 5 WRIT – A No. - 29707 of 2008 ताल शी करो नो आटि। पीरोन्ताB लिनोध (रिरोता $ चा लितालिर्थी टिनो क 15.07.06 क प्रेलितापीरो4क्षेण क Cरो नो आरोपी द्वा रो चाटिक ग लिलषिपीक श्री रो में खिल वनो स याह प्रेलितापीरो4क्षेण नोह4 टिकया गया टिक उसक2 ताल शी उनोक द्वा रो ल गया ह7 औरो नो ह4 कई स क्ष्या गव ह ह4 प्रेस्ताBता क2 टिकया गया $ब टिक आरोपी उक्त $ चा लितालिर्थी में& उपीखिस्र्थीता रोह $ चा क या(व ह4 में& हस्ता क्षेरो भी टिकया गया ह7 । इसस याह स षिबता हता ह7 टिक आरोपी नो अपीनो भ्रष्टा चा रो एव टिकया गया अभीद्र व्यावह रो क लिLपी नो क उद्देश्या स मेंनोगढ़ंता आध रोटिहनो आक्षेपी लग या हP आरोपी नो अपीनो उत्तरो क पी$ नो0 2 में& L या प्रेलिता सलग्नो ब ता अटिकता क2 ह7 पीरोन्ताB कई भी L या प्रेलिता सलग्नो नोह4 टिकया ह7 इसस याह भी स्पीष्टा हता ह7 टिक उसक पी स बचा व में& कई भी स क्ष्या/प्रेमें ण नोह4 ह7। $ उसक कर्थीनो क2 पीBषिष्टा करोता । आरोपी नो अपीनो उत्तरो में& लिल ह7 टिक श्री स ०आरो० लिसह क्षेत्रया प्रेबन्धक चालिचा(ता भीष्टा अलिधक रो4 रोह हP पीरोन्ताB आरोपी नो कई प्रेमें ण प्रेस्ताBता नोह4 टिकया $ भ्रष्टाता क लिसद्ध करोता । षिबनो टिकस आध रो /ठास प्रेमें ण क टिकस पीरो ल Lनो, आरोपी लग नो सज्ञेया अपीरो ध ह7। आरोपी पीरिरोचा लक नो आरोपी पीत्र एव क रोण बता ओं नोटिस क उत्तरो में& लिसफ( आध रोह4नो आरोपी प्रेत्या रोपी क2 ह7। उसनो 21 षिबनो टिक या त्र लिनोरो4क्षेणकता (ओं क स र्थी टिकया गया अभीद्र व्यावह रो व में ग( पीत्र LTनोनो व षिवभी ग में& नो $में करोनो क सम्बन्ध में& कई प्रेमें ण / स क्ष्या प्रेस्ताBता नोह4 टिकया ह7 औरो नो ह4 Cरो नो $ चा अपीनो बचा व में& रिरोपी(कता (ओं आटि स कई प्रेलितापीरो4क्षेण ह4 टिकया $ब टिक Cरो नो $ चा लितालिर्थीयाV में& उपीखिस्र्थीलिता रोह ह7 बखिWक आरोपी पीरिरोचा लक आरोपीV क गलता लिसद्ध नो करो पी नो , सत्याता क स मेंनो नो करो पी नो क2 खिस्र्थीलिता में& हठाधलिमें(ता क अपीनो ता हBया $ चा अलिधक रो4 क लिनोXशीV क2 अवहलनो करोता हBया $ चा क या(व ह4 में& सहयाग नोह4 टिकया गया , $ चा अलिधक रो4 नो भी अपीनो $ चा लिनोष्क!( में& खि$सक स्पीष्टा उWल टिकया ह7। इस मेंशी स आरोपी नो अपीनो पीत्र टिनो क 15.07.05 द्वा रो श्री अ$या 4खिक्षेता शी मेंत्र रोडव$ कमें(चा रो4 सघ फ$लग$ टिडपी क अपीनो 6 WRIT – A No. - 29707 of 2008 प्रेलितालिनोध नो लिमेंता करोनो सबन्ध प्रे र्थी(नो पीत्र $ चा अलिधक रो4 क प्रे प्त करो या र्थी खि$समें& प्रेलितालिनोलिध क2 सहमेंलिता आवश्याक हता ह7 पीरोन्ताB श्री अ$या 4खिक्षेता क षिबनो सहमेंलिता क पीत्र प्रेस्ताBता टिकया गया । इस प्रेक रो पीBनो\ आरोपी नो अपीनो पीत्र टिनो क 22.07.05 द्वा रो अन्या टिकस प्रेलितालिनोलिध ल नो क2 ब ता कह4 गई खि$समें& प्रेलितालिनोलिध क नो में ताक उWल नोह4 टिकया गया । इसस स्वता\ स्पीष्टा हता ह7 टिक आरोपी क2 सत्याता क स मेंनो नो करो सकनो करो सकनो क2 खिस्र्थीलिता में& $ चा क या(व ह4 क ब लिधता करोता हBया लखिम्बता रोनो चा हता र्थी । $ में त्र क नो@नो पीशीबन्4 क2 क या(व ह4 ह7। आरोपी पीरिरोचा लक नो अपीनो पीत्र टिनो क 9.05.05 में& स्वता\ अटिकता करो स्वक रो टिकया ह7 टिक उसक2 व हनो में& पी चा या त्र षिबनो टिक र्थी इसस स्वता\ लिसद्ध ह7 टिक उसक द्वा रो टिकरो या क2 धनोरो लिशी प्रे प्त करो या षित्रयाV क षिबनो टिक या त्र करो रोह र्थी । याटि बस क औचाक लिनोरो4क्षेण नो टिकया गया हता ता आरोपी अपीनो उद्देश्या में& सफल ह $ ता । भ्रष्टा चा रो पीकड़े $ नो क2 खिस्र्थीलिता $ नो क2 खिस्र्थीलिता में& लिनोरो4क्षेण्कता (ओं स अभीद्र व्यावह रो टिकया $ नो , में ग( पीत्र स0 0963900 क2 नोV प्रेलिताया LTनोकरो टिप्पीण नो अटिकता करोनो नो औरो ग याब करो नो पीरो आरोपी प्रेत्या रोपी करो भ्रष्टा चा रो, क लिLपी नो क भीरोसक प्रेया स टिकया गया ह7 स र्थी ह4 में त्र क नो@नो पीशीबन्4 क2 गई ह7। आरोपी पीरिरोचा लक द्वा रो आरोपीV पीरो गलिताशील क या(व ह4/$ चा क या(व ह4 क में त्र स्र्थीलिगता रोनो क लिलए लग ता रो प्रेया स टिकया $ ता रोह ह7 बचा व में& कई प्रेमें ण, स क्ष्या प्रेस्ताBता करोनो क प्रेया स नोह4 टिकया गया तार्थी $ चा क या(व ह4 क Bभी (वनो पी@ण( कह गया । पीरिरोचा लक नो क रोण बता ओं नोटिस क उत्तरो में& कह ह7 टिक श्री षिवश्री में लिसह या ता या ता अधक्षेक फताहपीBरो टिडपीV में& ता7नो ता क समेंया स प्रेया \ धनो उग ह4 क प्रेया स करोता र्थी तार्थी फ$- क स लिलनो क2 धमेंक2 ता रोहता र्थी। इस घनो क पी@व( कभी भी आरोपी द्वा रो नो ता उच्चा अलिधक रिरोयाV क इसक2 लिशीक याता क2 गई औरो नो ह4 इस ब ता क2 टिकस र्थी नो 7 WRIT – A No. - 29707 of 2008 में& एफ०आई०आरो० ह4 $( करो ई गई ह7। अस्ताB याह आरोपी मेंनोगढन्ता , कWपीनो पीरो आध रिरोता ह7 में त्र क नो@नो पीशीबन्4 हताB आरोपी लग या गया ह7। प्रेकरोण पीत्र वल स उपीलब्ध समेंस्ता प्रेपीत्रV क2 भील भी bलिता अध्यायानो करोनो, आरोपी पीरिरोचा लक क सव इलिताह स क अध्यायानो करोनो क पीश्चा ता में7 इस लिनोष्क!( पीरो पीहBचा ता ह@ टिक उपीरोक्त क आध रो पीरो अरोपी पीरिरोचा लक द्वा रो ण्ड क बचा व में& प्रेस्ताBता लिलखिता प्रेलितावनो पी@ण(ताया असता!$नोक पी या $ नो क2 खिस्र्थीलिता में& $ चापीरो न्ता प्रेमें खिणता आरोपीV क प्रेलिता आरोपी पीरिरोचा लक क उत्तरो या पी ता हBए ण्ड स्वरूपी क रोण बता ओं नोटिस में& प्रेस्ता षिवता ण्ड क अनोBरूपी ण्डस्वरूपी श्री बरो नो ल ल पीरिरोचा लक फ$लग$ टिडपी क लिनोलम्बनो क ल क अवशी! वतानो $ब्ता करोता हBए सव स पीeर्थीक टिकया $ ता ह7 ।” 15. Petitioner thereafter filed an Appeal against the order dated 9.2.2007 before the Appellate Authority, however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 28.4.2007. A revision thereof was also dismissed vide order dated 23.5.2008. 16. In the present writ petition orders dated 17.1.2007 28.4.2007 and 23.5.2008 are impugned. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred an application made by the petitioner on the very next date of inspection i.e. 9.5.2005 that petitioner was not carrying any passenger without ticket, rather, Traffic Inspector with malafide intention has made the Inquiry Report since the petitioner has refused to pay bribe. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has asked for certain documents, but same were not provided and this was the reason that he was 8 WRIT – A No. - 29707 of 2008 not able to place his case properly before the Inquiry Officer. However, he has filed a very detail reply before the Disciplinary Authority which was erroneously rejected and order of maximum punishment i.e. ‘Removal from Service’ was passed. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment passed by Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar Agarwal Vs. General Manager-II & Appointing Authority, State Bank of India & Ors., (2015) 15 SCC 184 and on judgments of this Court in Jagmohan Vs. State of U.P. & 2 Ors, Neutral Citation No.2025:AHC:29196 and in Writ-C No.1610 of 2018, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Reg. Office Meerut Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P. Meerut & Anr. 20. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned orders and submitted that principles of natural justice were substantially followed. Petitioner on his own has failed to appear before the Inquiry Officer. Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of Traffic Inspector and has asked questions based on the reply submitted by petitioner also. Petitioner has failed to produce any evidence in respect of his repeated contention that the inspection report was factually incorrect. 21. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 22. From perusal of records, it is clear that principles of natural justice and due process provided for conducting 9 WRIT – A No. - 29707 of 2008 disciplinary proceeding was followed in the present case since a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner to which he has filed a short reply. The petitioner has produced a witness, however, thereafter on his own has opted not to appear before the Inquiry Officer despite notice, therefore, Inquiry Officer has recorded the statement of Traffic Inspector and has asked questions in terms of the objections made by the petitioner by way of a short reply. 23. The Inquiry Officer after considering the materials on record found all charges proved against the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority has considered a detail reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice and by a reasoned order, concur the finding returned by the Inquiry Officer and passed an order of maximum punishment of ‘Removal from Service’. Appeal and Revision thereof were also dismissed by reasoned orders. 24. In the aforesaid circumstances, there is no procedural error in the decision making process and in such circumstances there is a very limited scope of review in the disciplinary proceedings. 25. Now the Court proceeds to consider as to whether defence put by the petitioner was a plausible defence. In this regard, Court takes note of a judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Bhupinderpal Singh Gill Vs. State of Punjab & Ors, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 113. Relevant paragraphs thereof are reproduced hereinafter: “33. Certain generic principles governing interference with orders of punishment that are passed following inquiry proceedings have evolved over a period of time. Law is well 10 WRIT – A No. - 29707 of 2008 settled that an administrative order punishing a delinquent employee is not ordinarily subject to correction in judicial review because the disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. If there is some legal evidence on which the findings can be based, then adequacy or even reliability of that evidence is not a matter for canvassing before the high court in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, should on consideration of the materials on record, the court be satisfied that there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice, or that the inquiry proceedings have been conducted contrary to statutory regulations prescribing the mode of such inquiry, or that the ultimate decision of the disciplinary authority is vitiated by considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case, or that the conclusion of the disciplinary authority is ex facie arbitrary or capricious, so much so that no reasonable person could have arrived at such conclusion, or there is any other ground very similar to the above, the high court may in the exercise of its discretion interfere to set things right. After all, public servants to whom Article 311 of the Constitution apply do enjoy certain procedural safeguards, enforcement of which by the high court can legitimately be urged by such servants depending upon the extent of breach that is manifestly demonstrated. 34. It would further be of immense profit, at this stage, to consider a specific principle which is tailored to the particular situation and could clinch the issue. The Constitution Bench of this Court, speaking through Hon'ble P.B. Gajendragadkar, J., in Union of India v. H.C. Goel (1964) 4 SCR 718 laid down a specific test which could be applied if a contention were raised that the conclusion is based on no evidence. Relevant passages from the said decision evincing one of the two questions arising for decision and the answer thereto, read as follows: “1. Two short questions of law arise for our decision in the present appeal. The first question is ... ; and the other question is whether the High Court in dealing with a writ petition filed by a GovernmentOfficer who has been dismissed from Government service is entitledto hold that the conclusion reached by the Government in regard tohis misconduct if (sic, is) not supported by any evidence at all. Asour judgment will show, we are inclined to answer both thequestions in the affirmative. Thus, the appellant, the Union of India, succeeds on the first point, but fails on the second. ... 20. ... It still remains to be considered whether the respondent is not right when he contends that in the circumstances of this case,the conclusion of the Government is based on no evidence whatever. It is a conclusion which is perverse and, therefore, suffers from such an obvious and patent error on the face of the record that the High Court would be justified in quashing it. In 11 WRIT – A No. - 29707 of 2008 dealing with writ petitions filed by public servants who have been dismissed, or otherwise dealt with so as to attract Article 311(2), the High Court under Article 226 has jurisdiction to enquire whether the conclusion of the Government on which the impugned order of dismissal rests is not supported by any evidence at all. It is true that the order of dismissal which may be passed against a Government servant found guilty of misconduct, can be described as an administrative order; nevertheless, the proceedings held against such a public servant under the statutory rules to determine whether he is guilty of the charges framed against him are in the nature of quasi-judicial proceedings and there can be little doubt that a writ of certiorari, for instance, can be claimed by a public servant if he is able to satisfy the High Court that the ultimate conclusion of the Government in the said proceedings, which is the basis of his dismissal, is based on no evidence.... 23. ... In exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 on such a plea, the High Court cannot consider the question about the sufficiency or adequacy of evidence in support of a particular conclusion. That is a matter which is within the competence of the authority which deals with the question; but the High Court can and must enquire whether there is any evidence at all in support of the impugned conclusion. In other words, if the whole of the evidence led in the enquiry is accepted as true, does the conclusion follow that the charge in question is proved against the respondent? This approach will avoid weighing the evidence. It will take the evidence as it stands and only examine whether on that evidence illegally (sic, legally) the impugned conclusion follows or not. ... 26. ... Though we fully appreciate the anxiety of the appellant to root out corruption from public service, we cannot ignore the fact that in carrying out the said purpose, mere suspicion should not be allowed to take the place of proof even in domestic enquiries. It may be that the technical rules which govern criminal trials in courts may not necessarily apply to disciplinary proceedings, but nevertheless, the principle that in punishing the guilty scrupulous care must be taken to see that the innocent are not punished, applies as much to regular criminal trials as to disciplinary enquires held under the statutory rules. ...” (emphasis supplied) 35. It also needs to be emphasised that although the traditional concept of natural justice comprises of the two rules that prohibit anyone from being condemned unheard and anyone from being a judge of his own cause, jurisprudence on natural justice principles have seen a distinct shift ever since the decision in Maneka Gandhi v. India (1978) 1 SCC 248 constitutionalised principles of natural justice, as held in Madhayamam 12 WRIT – A No. - 29707 of 2008 Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India (2023) 13 SCC 401. Drawing inspiration from such authorities, it would be apt to observe that in relation to disciplinary proceedings, subject to just exceptions, natural justice would envisage observance of procedural fairness before holding a public servant guilty of misconduct and imposing a punishment on him for such misconduct. While it is true that principles of natural justice supplement, and not supplant, the law, such principles have been declared by this Court to be a constituent feature of Article 14. Validity of any disciplinary action,whenever questioned, has to be tested on the touchstone of Articles 14, 16 and 21 as well as Article 311(2), wherever applicable. To test whether interference is warranted, this Court has laid down that thescrutiny ought to be confined to finding out whether the disciplinary proceedings have been conducted fairly; if not, an inference can be drawn that this has caused prejudice to the charged employee. Be that as it may, there can be no gainsaying that the consequences of violation of a fair procedure, which principles of natural justice embody, in a given situation has to be considered on a case-by-case basis bearing in mind that judicial review is not intended to be an appeal in disguise.” 26. The contents of the Inspection Report and the defence submitted by the petitioner are quite different. According to Traffic Inspector in the bus in all 75 persons were travelling, out of which 21 passengers were travelling without tickets, whereas according to the petitioner at that time only 59 persons were travelling out of which tickets were already issued to 54 persons and remaining 5 persons were police personnels and two associates, who were travelling without tickets. 27. In order to prove the case against the petitioner Traffic Inspector has appeared before the Inquiry Officer and has reiterated contents of the Inspection Report with specific averment that petitioner has snatched the margpatra and since petitioner despite notice has opted not to appear, therefore, Inquiry Officer has asked questions on basis of short reply submitted by the petitioner and Traffic Inspector has reiterated the same version made in the Inspection Report. 13 WRIT – A No. - 29707 of 2008 28. In order to substantiate his defence, petitioner ought to have produced some witnesses or substantive material however, he failed to do so, which goes adverse to his defence. The figure of passengers travelling in bus as put by the petitioner was not proved. 29. The explanation given in the written reply by the petitioner about allegations of bribe could not be accepted in absence of any material and a vague allegation without any supportive material could not be accepted, therefore, on facts of the present case, judgments placed by the counsel for petitioner are distinguishable and since charges against the petitioner are serious which amounts to major misconduct, therefore, in such circumstances, punishment of ‘Removal from Service’ is not shockingly disproportionate. 30. In aforesaid circumstances, principle of law as reiterated in Bhupinderpal Singh Gill (supra) if applied no case of interference under writ jurisdiction is made out, since it is not a case where principles of natural justice were not followed, it is not a case of ‘no evidence’ and no perversity was shown. 31. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.) September 23, 2025 SB Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad