Authority: High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital

Order Date: 03 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant – Uttarakhand Parivahan Nigam (including its Regional Managers and Assistant General Manager); Respondent – Ms. Ganga Joshi.
  • Nature of Proceeding: Special Appeal No. 35 of 2026 filed against the judgment and order dated 10 January 2026 passed by a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 101 (S/S) of 2017 (Smt. Ganga Joshi v. Uttarakhand Parivahan Nigam and others).
  • Background: Ms. Joshi was engaged on a contractual basis in 1998 with Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and continued as a contract conductor after the creation of Uttarakhand Transport Corporation. On a surprise bus inspection, discrepancies in waybills were discovered; a subsequent examination alleged that she tampered with the ticket machine, prepared 1,062 fake zero‑balance tickets and embezzled Rs 45,407. She was served a show‑cause notice, which she allegedly failed to satisfy, leading to her disengagement on 26 March 2011.
  • Procedural Deficiencies: No charge‑sheet was issued and no disciplinary inquiry was conducted before the termination, violating principles of natural justice and Article 311 of the Constitution.
  • Lower Court Findings: The Single Judge relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Purshottam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India (AIR 1958 SC 36) and quashed the termination order, restoring Ms. Joshi’s status to that prior to 26 March 2011 and directing payment of 50 % of the wages she had drawn. The petition for regularisation as a Clerk was rejected; she could seek regularisation as a Conductor after the proceedings.
  • Appellants’ Submissions: Uttarakhand Parivahan Nigam argued that the termination was based on proven misconduct and that the 50 % wage award was unsustainable for a contract employee paid per kilometre.
  • Respondent’s Position: Ms. Joshi contended lack of training on the ticket machine and claimed accidental issuance of zero‑balance tickets.

Final Outcome

  • The appellate bench (Hon’ble Judges Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Pankaj Purohit) modified the impugned judgment only to the extent it provided for payment of arrears of salary.
  • Ms. Joshi shall be placed in the same position she held before the termination of her services.
  • The competent authority is directed to pass the necessary reinstatement order within two weeks of this judgment.
  • The authority is at liberty to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Ms. Joshi in accordance with law.
  • The special appeal is disposed of in these terms, and any pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.

Topics: Employment Law, Public Transport