CIVIL APPEAL 12185 of 2008 on 15 November 1996

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

CWP(T) No. 12185 of 2008. Decided on 29[th] December, 2010.

_____________________________________________________

Laxmi Nand.

….Petitioner.

-Versus-

Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation and Others.

…Respondents.

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?[1] No.

__________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. R.P. Singh, Advocate.

For the respondents. : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral):

Petitioner was working as Conductor in the respondent-Corporation. He was charge-sheeted under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 on 09.09.1994. Inquiry Officer was appointed. He furnished the report to the Disciplinary Authority on 15.11.1996. Thereafter, the memorandum was issued to the petitioner on 23.11.1996. He filed reply to the same vide Annexure P-B. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of removal from service upon the petitioner on 13.11.1997. He assailed the order of imposition of penalty before the learned erstwhile learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 2787/1999. The same was directed to be treated as representation to the Managing Director of the respondent –Corporation. He rejected the same on 10[th] February, 2005.

1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No.

2. Mr. R.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the imposition of penalty of removal from service is illegal and arbitrary. He has also argued that the imposition of penalty to remove the petitioner from service is dis-proportionate to the alleged mis-conduct.

3. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the order dated 13.11.1997, whereby the petitioner was imposed the penalty of removal from service and the order passed by the Managing Director on 10.02.2005.

4. Petitioner was put on duty as Conductor in bus No.HP-07-1022. The bus has to ply between Shimla to Tiyali. According to the charge levelled against the petitioner, he was drunk while discharging the duties and got down from the bus on 9[th] August, 1994 and thereafter, he also did not attend the duty on 10[th] August, 1994. The Inquiry Officer, after taking into consideration the statement of Shri Hem Raj, Junior Technician, Grade-III and Driver, namely, Shri Geeta Ram, came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner were duly proved.

5. Mr. R.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his client was patient of Gastroeaties. However, this plea was not raised by him before the Inquiry Officer. There is no perversity or illegality in the inquiry report dated 15.11.1996 (Annexure PA/1). Petitioner had consumed liquor while discharging his duties on 9[th] August, 1994. He has also not attended his duties on 10[th] August, 1994 and the driver has to bring the passengers to Shimla. Petitioner has been associated during the course of inquiry and he has also been issued show-

cause notice on 23.11.1996, to which he has filed the reply before the penalty of removal from service was imposed upon the petitioner. It has come in the order dated 10.02.2005 that during his service tenure of 15 years, he was involved in as many as 19 cases of omission and commission. He had suffered the punishment of withholding of two increments vide order dated 10.05.1983 within a short span of eight months of his joining the service. He was put under suspension on six occasions. He has remained suspended for a period of 33 months. It is, thus, evident that the disciplinary authority has taken into consideration all the facts and circumstances against the petitioner including the inquiry report. There is no merit in the contention of Mr. R.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner that the imposition of penalty is disproportionate. It is true that the penalty imposed must commensurate to alleged mis-conduct. In this case, the petitioner was found drunk on 9[th]August, 1994 and has also abstained willfully on 10[th] August, 1994. If it had been an isolated case, the penalty imposed upon the petitioner could be termed as harsh and excessive, however, fact of the matter is that there are 19 cases of omission and commission in his service career of 15 years. He remained suspended on six occasions. Consequently, the penalty imposed upon the petitioner is neither harsh nor excessive.

6. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.

December 29, 2010. (bhupender)

(Rajiv Sharma) Judge

`