Badar Deen vs H.R.T.C. and Others

Sanjay Karol, J.—Petitioner was working as a Conductor with the respondents-Corporation. During the course of discharge of his duties, he was found to have misappropriated public fund and thus misconducted himself. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. He was served with the show cause notice to which he responded. His explanation was found not to be satisfactory. Hence, memorandum containing articles of charge was issued to him. He responded to the same. Inquiry Officer afforded adequate opportunity of placing on record his defense and examining the witnesses of the parties. Inquiry Officer found all the charges to have been proved. Disciplinary Authority accepted the report of the Inquiry Officer and issued notice, proposing to impose penalty of removal. Petitioner responded to the same which explanation did not find favor with the Disciplinary Authority and, as such, order imposing penalty of removal from service was passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 17.10.2000 (Annexure P-6). Petitioner preferred an appeal and the same stands rejected in terms of impugned order dated 18.3.2002 (Annexure P-11).

Reading of the impugned order shows that adequate opportunity of hearing/representation was afforded to the petitioner. Entire material including the contentions raised by the petitioner were considered and decided. The Appellate Authority assigned reasons for rejecting the appeal. It is apparent that petitioner had issued short tickets to the passengers for the journey, which fact was discovered by the Flying Squad when the bus was checked mid-way.

It is not for this Court to sit in an appeal over the decision taken by the Disciplinary Authority/Appellate Authority. Decision making process cannot be faulted. Scope of interference in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited. I find that principles of natural justice and entire procedure prescribed in law, stands fully complied with by the Inquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. This Court cannot sit over an appeal to re-appreciate the evidence simply because another view can possibly be taken in the matter. Findings recorded by the authorities below cannot be said to be perverse in any manner. It is not that petitioner was found to have embezzled public money for the first time. In the past also, there were several instances where petitioner was found to have misconducted himself in the like manner. It is the duty of a government servant to discharge his duties with utmost integrity and honesty, which in the instant case petitioner has miserably failed to do so. His conduct has not only soiled reputation of the employer but also shaken confidence of the people in the institution. For better administration, it is necessary that people with low integrity are not allowed to function on public post and public institutions. As such, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.