{"id":63482,"date":"2005-11-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-11-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-s-r-t-c-vs-mahendra-nath-tiwari-anr-on-11-november-2005"},"modified":"2015-05-02T13:41:56","modified_gmt":"2015-05-02T08:11:56","slug":"u-p-s-r-t-c-vs-mahendra-nath-tiwari-anr-on-11-november-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-s-r-t-c-vs-mahendra-nath-tiwari-anr-on-11-november-2005","title":{"rendered":"U.P.S.R.T.C vs Mahendra Nath Tiwari &amp; Anr on 11 November, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">U.P.S.R.T.C vs Mahendra Nath Tiwari &amp; Anr on 11 November, 2005<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: P Balasubramanyan<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Ruma Pal, P.K. Balasubramanyan<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  6703 of 2005\n\nPETITIONER:\nU.P.S.R.T.C.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMahendra Nath Tiwari &amp; Anr.\t\t\t\t  \n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 11\/11\/2005\n\nBENCH:\nRUMA PAL &amp; P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<br \/>\n[arising out of SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 9495 OF 2004]<\/p>\n<p>P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>1.\t\tThe respondent herein was appointed conductor of a bus<br \/>\nby the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter<br \/>\nreferred to as &#8220;U.P.S.R.T.C.&#8221;).  On the allegation that he was found to<br \/>\nbe driving the bus URO 7908 and that no ticket had been issued to a<br \/>\nlone passenger found in the bus and he had in his possession used<br \/>\ntickets, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent.<br \/>\nA domestic enquiry was got conducted through a retired judicial<br \/>\nofficer.  He found that the respondent was unauthorisedly driving the<br \/>\nbus and that no ticket had been issued to a lone passenger sitting in the<br \/>\nbus when the checking party inspected the bus.  He also found that the<br \/>\nrespondent had in his possession 12 used tickets.  Based on the<br \/>\nfinding at the enquiry and after hearing the respondent, U.P.S.R.T.C.<br \/>\nimposed a punishment of removal against the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\t\tAt the instance of the respondent, the matter was sent to<br \/>\nthe labour court.  It was numbered as Adjudication Case No. 259 of<br \/>\n1991.  The Presiding Officer found that the domestic enquiry relied on<br \/>\nby the U.P.S.R.T.C. was not proper.  The parties were given an<br \/>\nopportunity to lead evidence.  U.P.S.R.T.C. adduced evidence in<br \/>\nsupport of the charge.  The respondent adduced no evidence.  In other<br \/>\nwords, he did not even try to explain the circumstances under which<br \/>\nhe was allegedly driving the bus or the circumstance in which it was<br \/>\nfound that a lone passenger travelling in the bus had not been issued a<br \/>\nticket.  He also did not try to explain as to how he came to be in<br \/>\npossession of 12 used tickets.  The Presiding Officer, in spite of the<br \/>\nabsence of evidence on the side of the respondent proceeded to<br \/>\ninterfere with the punishment imposed.  It appears that the Presiding<br \/>\nOfficer found that the respondent was a conductor but was driving the<br \/>\nbus.  There was clear evidence before him that the driving of the bus<br \/>\nby a conductor amounted to misconduct.  The Presiding Officer, in<br \/>\nfact, noticed that only the respondent could explain how the twelve<br \/>\nused tickets were with him or how he happened to be in possession of<br \/>\nthem.  He also stated that if used tickets were found with the<br \/>\nconductor it falls within the definition of misconduct.  Taking a<br \/>\ncurious view that since no action has been taken against the driver, no<br \/>\naction could be taken against the respondent alone and that the<br \/>\npunishment awarded was too severe, the Presiding Officer proceeded<br \/>\nto interfere with the punishment.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\t\tThe Presiding Officer directed the reinstatement of the<br \/>\nrespondent with continuity of service and all the remaining dues but<br \/>\ndirected the stoppage of his annual increment.  He further directed that<br \/>\nthe respondent will receive his annual increment only when he<br \/>\nsatisfied his senior officers for three years without any charges or<br \/>\ncomplaint against him.  Apparently, what he meant was that the<br \/>\nquestion of increment would depend upon the respondent satisfying<br \/>\nhis superiors over a period of three years that his conduct as a<br \/>\nconductor during that period was blemishless.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\t\tU.P.S.R.T.C. filed a writ petition in the High Court of<br \/>\nAllahabad challenging the award of the labour court.  By a reasoning,<br \/>\nwhich with all the restraint at our command, we can only describe as<br \/>\nperverse and a conclusion obviously flawed, the High Court dismissed<br \/>\nthe Writ Petition.  The main theme of the song was that no action had<br \/>\nbeen taken against the driver.  The judge proceeded to speculate on<br \/>\nthe reason why the conductor was driving the bus.  He also stated that<br \/>\nthe embezzlement alleged against the respondent was of a paltry sum<br \/>\nof Rs. 1.50.  He came to a curious conclusion that the bus driver who<br \/>\naccording to him had changed roles with the respondent as a<br \/>\nconductor, was responsible for not collecting the fare from the<br \/>\npassenger and no reason was shown why no charge sheet was given to<br \/>\nthe driver and why no enquiry was held against him.  The learned<br \/>\njudge also accepted the argument that the respondent was given a<br \/>\ntotally disproportionate and harsh punishment for his misconduct.<br \/>\nThe Writ Petition was dismissed.  We are aghast at the approach made<br \/>\nby the learned judge and the reasoning adopted by him. Here was a<br \/>\nconductor who was not authorized to drive the bus.  Admittedly, he<br \/>\nwas driving the bus at the relevant time.  He thus endangered the lives<br \/>\nof pedestrians and other vehicle owners using the road.  He also<br \/>\nendangered the safety of the bus belonging to U.P.S.R.T.C.  He was<br \/>\nfound in possession of 12 used tickets for which he offered no<br \/>\nexplanation.  One passenger was found in the bus to whom no ticket<br \/>\nhad been issued.  If these are not enough to find the conductor of a bus<br \/>\nguilty of misconduct, we wonder what according to the learned judge<br \/>\nwould be misconduct on the part of the conductor of a bus.  The<br \/>\njudgment of the High Court is challenged in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\t\tAt the time of issuing notice, this Court issued notice<br \/>\nonly limited to the question of back wages that was awarded to the<br \/>\nrespondent.  Of course, when we are hearing the appeal on grant of<br \/>\nleave or the petition for special leave to appeal after notice, we are<br \/>\nentitled to reopen the appeal in its entirety and consider the question<br \/>\nof punishment and the legality of the reinstatement ordered by the<br \/>\nlabour court and affirmed by the High Court.  This could be done by<br \/>\ngiving a notice in that behalf to the respondent and giving him an<br \/>\nopportunity of being heard.  But for the purpose of this case and at<br \/>\nthis distance of time, we do not think that it is necessary to do so.<br \/>\nTherefore, somewhat reluctantly, we refrain from adopting that<br \/>\ncourse, though according to us, this is a fit case where neither the<br \/>\nlabour court nor the High Court had any justification in interfering<br \/>\nwith the order removing the respondent from service.  The conduct of<br \/>\nthe respondent as a conductor of U.P.S.R.T.C. was totally<br \/>\nirresponsible and clearly constituted misconduct on his part deserving<br \/>\nthe maximum punishment.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\t\tWe have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that<br \/>\nthe respondent did not deserve the award of back wages to him. In<br \/>\nfact, he must consider himself lucky to have been reinstated and that<br \/>\nwe are not interfering with that reinstatement.  When a conductor<br \/>\ndrives a bus for which he is not authorized, he is endangering the<br \/>\npublic as well as the property of his employer.  This by itself is a<br \/>\nserious misconduct justifying dismissal of a conductor.  Similarly, the<br \/>\nfact that one passenger was found travelling and had not been issued a<br \/>\nticket for that journey, constitutes a grave charge against a conductor<br \/>\nwho is really in a position of trust as far as the employer-Corporation<br \/>\nis concerned.  He is duty bound to collect the fare from every<br \/>\npassenger on behalf of his employer.  Same is the position regarding<br \/>\nthe unexplained twelve used tickets, found in his possession.  That<br \/>\nprima facie suggests that there is room to doubt the honesty of the<br \/>\nrespondent.  He did not even try to explain the circumstances in that<br \/>\nregard.  The charges are such that they show a betrayal of the trust<br \/>\nplaced on the conductor by the employer and that the employee<br \/>\nendangered an asset of the corporation in addition to endangering the<br \/>\nlives of the other users of the road.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\t\tIt is a misconception to consider that the amount<br \/>\ninvolved in an offence of this nature has a material bearing, while<br \/>\nconsidering whether there has been misconduct on the part of an<br \/>\nemployee.  It may be relevant in a criminal prosecution when<br \/>\nconsidering the quantum of punishment to be imposed.  When a<br \/>\nperson like the conductor of a bus, who has the obligation to make<br \/>\nproper collection of the charges from the passengers on issuing tickets<br \/>\nto them, is found to have passengers in the bus, even if it be only one,<br \/>\nto whom he had not issued a ticket, it clearly amounts to a clear<br \/>\nviolation of the duty imposed on him.  It is really a breach of the duty<br \/>\ncast on the conductor who is acting on behalf of the employer.<br \/>\nWhether it be one passenger or ten passengers it would make no<br \/>\ndifference in principle in the absence of any explanation in that behalf.<br \/>\nIt was simply the case of a conductor who had violated the<br \/>\nRegulations or the terms of his employment and had betrayed his<br \/>\nemployer, which in any event, is a grave misconduct justifying a<br \/>\ndismissal.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\t\tWe, therefore, allow the appeal in part and set aside the<br \/>\naward of back wages.  The respondent would be entitled to wages or<br \/>\nsalary only from the date of his being reinstated pursuant to the<br \/>\ndirection of the labour court.  If anything has been paid to him in<br \/>\nexcess, U.P.S.R.T.C. would be entitled to adjust the same from his<br \/>\nfuture salary in monthly installments and\/or recover it from his retiral<br \/>\nbenefits, if he is not still in service or by proceeding otherwise.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India U.P.S.R.T.C vs Mahendra Nath Tiwari &amp; Anr on 11 November, 2005 Author: P Balasubramanyan Bench: Ruma Pal, P.K. Balasubramanyan CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 6703 of 2005 PETITIONER: U.P.S.R.T.C. RESPONDENT: Mahendra Nath Tiwari &amp; Anr. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11\/11\/2005 BENCH: RUMA PAL &amp; P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN JUDGMENT: J U D G M E [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-63482","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>U.P.S.R.T.C vs Mahendra Nath Tiwari &amp; Anr on 11 November, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-s-r-t-c-vs-mahendra-nath-tiwari-anr-on-11-november-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"U.P.S.R.T.C vs Mahendra Nath Tiwari &amp; Anr on 11 November, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-s-r-t-c-vs-mahendra-nath-tiwari-anr-on-11-november-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2005-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-02T08:11:56+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-p-s-r-t-c-vs-mahendra-nath-tiwari-anr-on-11-november-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-p-s-r-t-c-vs-mahendra-nath-tiwari-anr-on-11-november-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"U.P.S.R.T.C vs Mahendra Nath Tiwari &amp; Anr on 11 November, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-02T08:11:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-p-s-r-t-c-vs-mahendra-nath-tiwari-anr-on-11-november-2005\"},\"wordCount\":1600,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-p-s-r-t-c-vs-mahendra-nath-tiwari-anr-on-11-november-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-p-s-r-t-c-vs-mahendra-nath-tiwari-anr-on-11-november-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-p-s-r-t-c-vs-mahendra-nath-tiwari-anr-on-11-november-2005\",\"name\":\"U.P.S.R.T.C vs Mahendra Nath Tiwari &amp; Anr on 11 November, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-02T08:11:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-p-s-r-t-c-vs-mahendra-nath-tiwari-anr-on-11-november-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-p-s-r-t-c-vs-mahendra-nath-tiwari-anr-on-11-november-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-p-s-r-t-c-vs-mahendra-nath-tiwari-anr-on-11-november-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"U.P.S.R.T.C vs Mahendra Nath Tiwari &amp; Anr on 11 November, 2005\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"U.P.S.R.T.C vs Mahendra Nath Tiwari &amp; Anr on 11 November, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-s-r-t-c-vs-mahendra-nath-tiwari-anr-on-11-november-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"U.P.S.R.T.C vs Mahendra Nath Tiwari &amp; Anr on 11 November, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-s-r-t-c-vs-mahendra-nath-tiwari-anr-on-11-november-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-02T08:11:56+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-s-r-t-c-vs-mahendra-nath-tiwari-anr-on-11-november-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-s-r-t-c-vs-mahendra-nath-tiwari-anr-on-11-november-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"U.P.S.R.T.C vs Mahendra Nath Tiwari &amp; Anr on 11 November, 2005","datePublished":"2005-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-02T08:11:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-s-r-t-c-vs-mahendra-nath-tiwari-anr-on-11-november-2005"},"wordCount":1600,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-s-r-t-c-vs-mahendra-nath-tiwari-anr-on-11-november-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-s-r-t-c-vs-mahendra-nath-tiwari-anr-on-11-november-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-s-r-t-c-vs-mahendra-nath-tiwari-anr-on-11-november-2005","name":"U.P.S.R.T.C vs Mahendra Nath Tiwari &amp; Anr on 11 November, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-02T08:11:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-s-r-t-c-vs-mahendra-nath-tiwari-anr-on-11-november-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-s-r-t-c-vs-mahendra-nath-tiwari-anr-on-11-november-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-s-r-t-c-vs-mahendra-nath-tiwari-anr-on-11-november-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"U.P.S.R.T.C vs Mahendra Nath Tiwari &amp; Anr on 11 November, 2005"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/63482","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=63482"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/63482\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=63482"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=63482"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=63482"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}