The central legal point established in the judgment is the duty of conductors to collect the correct fare from passengers, the importance of the conductor's honesty, and the appropriate punishment for carrying ticketless passengers as highlighted in various judgments.

Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.

Heard Shri A.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1; and Shri Nirpendra Mishra, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 5.

2. By means of present petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.08.2014 passed by respondent No.2, order dated 24.03.2015 passed by respondent No.3 and order dated 05.10.2015 passed by respondent No.4.

3. The case in nutshell is that petitioner was a Conductor in the respondent-Corporation. He was posted at Jaunpur Depot and was allotted bus No. UP 65 K 8884, which was going from Jaunpur to Sultanpur on 16.04.2011. The said bus was checked by Transport Superintendent, Lucknow at around 14.34 p.m.

4. During checking, it was found that nine persons were without ticket.

5. Petitioner was suspended by order dated 02.09.2012 and an enquiry was conducted. Inquiry Officer submitted his report stating that during enquiry, it was found that 28 passengers were having tickets while 6 passengers were without ticket and as such he reached to the conclusion that petitioner was responsible for carrying 6 passengers without ticket.

6. During enquiry, the petitioner appeared before the Inquiry Officer and submitted his reply to the charge sheet and stated that 28 passengers were having tickets and when the bus reached Sigramau crossing one contractual staff of the Corporation boarded the bus along with 5 students. He had further submitted before the Inquiry Officer that he had directed the driver of bus to park the bus on the left side so as to enable him to make tickets but at the same time the vehicle in question was checked.

7. He further submitted that as there was no time he could not make the ticket for the 5 passengers as the other person was the staff of the Corporation.

8. The Inquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and came to conclusion that 28 passengers were having tickets while 6 passengers did not have any valid ticket.

9. Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C by order dated 30.08.2014, dismissed the petitioner from services. On the ground that petitioner was carrying 6 passengers without ticket. Further he relied upon the judgment of this Court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court

10. Being aggrieved, by the said order, petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.3, which was also rejected by order dated 24.03.2015.

11. The petitioner preferred a revision before the respondent No.4, who also concurred with the other two Authorities and rejected the revision of petitioner.

12. Shri Pandey counsel for petitioner submits that the inquiry Report submitted by the Inquiry Officer has various contradictions as during the inspection as well as in the suspension order dated 02.09.2012, it was mentioned that 9 passengers were travelling without ticket while the Inquiry Officer reached to the conclusion that as the total number of passengers in the bus were 34 and 28 were having valid tickets then the total number of passengers without valid tickets was 6, and it was by mistake that 9 passengers have been shown.

13. He further submits that as there is contradictions in the inquiry Report itself and it is still not clear whether there were 9 passengers or 6 passengers travelling without ticket. The matter should be remanded back and an enquiry de novo be conducted.

14. He further relied upon the supplementary affidavit so filed bringing on record, a circular dated 5th July, 2006 of the Transport Corporation in which at page No.10, it is stated that if the appointing authority is not in consonance with the finding of the Inquiry Officer, then it should issue show cause notice and categorically state the punishment to be awarded.

15. Per contra, Shri Nirpendra Mishra counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation submits that there is no inconsistency in the inquiry Report and it has been found that 6 passengers were travelling without ticket. He submits that it is immaterial whether 9 or 6 passengers are travelling without ticket and even if