HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 24196 of 2018 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. 1. Heard Sri Awadh Sharma, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Dharmendra Dhar Dubey, learned counsel for respondents. 2. In the present case petitioner is a habitual offender since due to negligent driving he met with accidents while driving bus even before alleged occurrence also, a subject matter of present case. 3. Due to above act, the tetitioner has suffered earlier three disciplinary proceedings due to reason that on 22.08.2009, 28.03.2013 and 29.10.2014 he met with accidents and for which he was punished with removal from service and recovery was also made. 4. The present occurrence took place on 11.06.2016 since due to overtaking the bus driven by petitioner met accident with a stationed trolley. An explanation that it was not a case of overtaking, was disbelieved during disciplinary proceedings since no evidence was brought on record. 5. An attempt was made by learned counsel for petitioner to argue that no evidence was collected or the opinion given by author of technical report was only on basis of assumption that accident took place due to overtaking, however, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for respondents that during disciplinary proceedings petitioner has cross- examined the witness, who has prepared technical report and on basis of condition of damaged bus as well as since no proof was found that at the time of accident the breaks were not working, charges were found proved as well as there is no apparent error in decision making process. 6. The Court also takes note that in technical report statements were also recorded and during inquiry the petitioner was satisfied and has endorsed during that he does not want to cross-examine any other person. Said Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Arvind Kumar Pandey, Awadh Sharma, Gyan Dev Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anuj Srivastava, C.S.C., Dharmendra Dhar Dubey, Vishesh Kumar Gupta Satyaveer Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) endorsement is also not disputed. During accidents passengers have received injuries, which is also not much disputed. 7. Therefore, as repeatedly held by Supreme Court that in disciplinary proceedings the High Court should remain slow in interfering, if there is no irregularity in decision making process and on basis of proved charge the punishment is not shockingly disproportionate and as discussed above, such circumstance does not exist in the present case (See, State of Rajasthan vs. Bhupendra Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1908). 8. In view of above, no case of interference is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. August 27, 2025 AK WRIA No. 24196 of 2018 2 (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.) Digitally signed by :- AWADESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad