HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 14216 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. 1. Heard Ambleshwar Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Sunil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for respondents. 2. The petitioner is a driver at the respondent U.P.S.R.T.C. He was plying an A.C. bus on a diverted route from Kaushambi to Lucknow via Bareilly due to 'कांवड़ यात्रा' on 10.07.2023. Just before 12 k.m. from Bareilly, a low rise branch of a tree hit the upper part of bus which caused damage to A.C. of the bus and and its repair has caused estimated value of Rs.3.84 lac and by Disciplinary Proceedings, the said amount was directed to be recover in 73 installments by impugned order dated 12.10.2023. 3. The petitioner has not disputed about the damage of A.C. of bus due to impact, however, it was explained that in early morning at about 5.00 a.m., it was dark and he was following a bus and suddenly due to impact of a low branch, accidentally, the A.C. of the bus got damaged. It was not an intentional act or result of a negligence driving, however, said explanation does not find satisfactory by Inquiry Officer in the Inquiry Report dated 23.09.2023 that though it was a diverted route, but it was used by number of buses including A.C. and without A.C. buses and none of other bus got damaged. If the petitioner was enough careful, impact and damage could be avoided. 4. The Disciplinary Authority passed the order dated 12.10.2023, however, petitioner has not filed any Appeal against the impugned Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ambleshwar Pandey, Manas Tripathi, Prateek Dawar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sunil Kumar Misra Vatan Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) order passed by Disciplinary Authority. The declaration made in paragraph No.49 of present writ petition that there was no any other efficacious alternative remedy except to approach this Court without disclosing that said impugned order could be challenged by way of filing an Appeal, therefore, was an incorrect declaration. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner has reiterated the explanation mentioned during disciplinary proceedings as well as that petitioner is going to retire within 5 years and cost of repair of A.C. of the bus was an estimated cost, therefore, quantum of amount of recovery of Rs.3.84 lac was not based on any record or bill of expenses occurred on repairing of A.C. of the bus. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent has stated that there is an alternative remedy of filing an Appeal and that petitioner has not denied the occurrence. The explanation was rightly rejected by reasons in the Inquiry Report and further by the Disciplinary Authority. The quantum of recovery was based on estimated amount, spend on repair of A.C. of the bus. 7. I have considered the above submissions and perused the record. The explanation made by petitioner does not have much substance since on alternative route, number of other buses were also traveled and none of A.C. bus was got damaged and, therefore, it was a case of negligence driving, however, two issues are still have some substance that petitioner has not filed any Appeal as well as that quantum of recovery was based on estimated expenditure and not on basis of actual expenditure occurred in the repair of A.C. of the bus, therefore, considering all aspect of present case as well as the above referred submissions, the Court is of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of with following directions :- (a) The petitioner has liberty to file an Appeal, however, since the Court has already returned a finding that explanation given by petitioner has no substance, therefore, only issue which left for consideration is quantum of recovery since on basis of record of this writ petition and on basis of impugned order, it appears that order of quantum of WRIA No. 14216 of 2025 2 recovery was based on estimated expenditure occurred in the repair of A.C. of the bus and the Court is of the view that it ought to be based on actual cost of repair, therefore, if any Departmental Appeal is filed within two weeks, the Appellate Authority will consider quantum of recovery, that it could not be in excess of cost incurred rather the Appellate Authority can consider it to reduce the quantum of recovery determine on basis of actual expenditure, considering the petitioner is going to retire within few years, since he has declared his present age to be 55 years. 8. Writ Petition is accordingly, disposed of with aforesaid observation, liberty and directions. September 19, 2025 P. Pandey WRIA No. 14216 of 2025 3 (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.) Digitally signed by :- PUSHPENDRA PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad