Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:116920 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 24619 of 2018 Petitioner :- Babban Prasad Gupta Respondent :- Pradhan Prabandhak (Sanhalan), Upsrtc, Lucknow And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Maheep Singh,Mangal Rai,Sanjay Kr. Srivastava,Satyendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Ajeet Kumar Singh,S.M. Mishra Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Petitioner, a Conductor, has suffered with disciplinary proceedings mainly on two grounds that a part of money collected from passengers was deposited after two days as well as minimum collection required for 464 kms. was only 37% i.e. very low. 2. Above referred charges were found proved since admittedly the petitioner has deposited Rs. 447.36/- after two days as well as other charge was based on records which could not be denied. 3. The petitioner was awarded punishment of stoppage of one yearly increment for 5 years by Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner has filed an appeal and the Appellate Authority has interfered with quantum of punishment and reduced the stoppage of one financial increment from 5 years to 3 years, thereafter, petitioner has approached this Court. 4. Sri Satendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for petitioner submits that there is no allegation that the petitioner has tempered with ETM (Electronic Ticket Machine) since on inspection it was found defective, however, it was not disputed that petitioner has deposited Rs. 447.36/- after two days but it was not an intention to embezzle it. So far as other charge is concerned, collection would depend upon number of passengers and no material was produced that petitioner was guilty for less passengers. 5. Sri S.M. Mishra, learned counsel for respondents submits that on basis of records, charges were found proved and Appellate Authority has interfered with the punishment by reducing period of stoppage of a yearly increment from 5 years to 3 years. He further submits that no circumstance exists to interfere. 6. I have considered above submissions and perused the records. 7. It is not disputed that both charges as referred above were found proved since petitioner has deposited Rs. 447.36/- collected from passengers after two days and his collection remained less than 37%. The Appellate Authority has already interfered with quantum of punishment by reducing it from 5 years to 3 years and said period of 3 years has already been expired, therefore, considering that it is well settled that High Court may remain slow in interfering with departmental proceedings and since there is no allegation that principles of natural justice were not followed, therefore, Court is of view that as Appellate Authority has already interfered in quantum of punishment, therefore, there is no ground to interfere. 8. Accordingly, writ petition being sans merit is dismissed. Order Date :- 18.7.2025 N. Sinha Digitally signed by :- NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad