HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 426 of 2025 Court No. - 52 HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J. 1. Heard Mr. Shad Azam, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Dharmendra Dhar Dubey, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records. 2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 16.12.2024, whereby the services of the petitioner, who was engaged as a Conductor on a contractual basis, have been terminated. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was engaged as a Bus Conductor on a contractual basis on 04.11.2019 in the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'UPSRTC'). On 15.12.2024, while the petitioner was performing his duty on the Nazibabad–Haridwar route on Bus No. UP 77 AN 2180, an inspection was conducted. During the said inspection, it was found that 30 passengers were travelling in the bus, out of which 8 passengers were found without tickets. The inspection team issued tickets to the said passengers. Thereafter, based solely on the inspection report and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or issuing a show- cause notice, his services were terminated, which is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Moreover, a copy of the inspection report was never provided to the petitioner. Placing reliance upon the circular dated 27.04.2023 issued by the Managing Director, UPSRTC, he submits that prior to passing any punishment order, an opportunity of hearing should have been given to the petitioner. Thus, the impugned order is in Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shad Azam Counsel for Respondent(s) : Dharmendra Dhar Dubey Rahul Kumar .....Petitioner(s) U.P. State Road Transport Corporation And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) violation of the aforesaid circular issued by the department. Therefore, the impugned order may be quashed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that as per the terms and conditions of employment, the petitioner had a liberty to approach the Managing Director, UPSRTC, in case of any such dispute as provided under Clause 21 of the terms and conditions. He further submits that the inspection report was duly provided to the petitioner, as is evident from Page 19 of the counter affidavit, where the inspection report bears the signature of the petitioner. He further submits that in such a serious allegation, there is no requirement of hearing, in view of the settled position of law. Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order." 5. This Court finds that the relevant circular requires that the petitioner should have been afforded an opportunity of hearing prior to the passing of the impugned order. The terms and conditions of the contract also provide for submission of a representation before the Managing Director in the event of any such dispute. It is not in dispute that a representation was submitted by the petitioner. However, based on the inspection conducted on 15.12.2024, the petitioner was terminated on the very next day, i.e., 16.12.2024. 6. In view of the above, the termination order dated 16.12.2024 passed by the Assistant Regional Manager, Nazibabad Depot is set aside. The matter is remitted to the respondent no.3, Assistant Regional Manager, Nazibabad, Depot., to pass afresh order in accordance with law, by means of a reasoned and speaking order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment. 7. The writ petition stands allowed accordingly. No order as to costs. October 10, 2025 Jitendra/- WRIA No. 426 of 2025 2 (Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad