Jasmer Singh vs State of Haryana and Another

A.N. Jindal, J.—Application is allowed and documents (Annexures-A-1 and A-2) are taken on record. CM No. 14380-C of 2011

For the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed and delay in refiling the appeal is condoned.

RSA No. 4929 of 2011

Having failed to get an order dated 25.2.2004 passed by the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Yamuna Nagar, set aside from both the Courts below, the plaintiff-appellant (hereinafter referred as ''the plaintiff'') has preferred this regular second appeal.

The plaintiff, who was working as a conductor in Haryana Roadways having already been awarded the following penalties at the previous times:--

was caught taking the passengers without tickets on 18.3.2002 on bus No. 8844, which was checked near Katra Octroi post. It was found that he permitted five passengers to travel from Jammu to Katra without tickets. On seeing the checking staff, he tried to punch the tickets, but he could punch only one stage on 16 number side. As such, he had embezzled Rs. 90/-. A regular enquiry was held against him, whereupon he was found guilty. A show-cause notice was issued to him to explain as to "why his services should not be terminated." Thereafter, he filed reply to the said show-cause notice and was also heard personally. Consequently, vide order dated 25.2.2004, his three annual increments with cumulative effect were stopped and the suspension period was restricted to subsistence allowance.

The plaintiff challenged the aforesaid enquiry proceedings and the penalty order by way of filing a suit.

The defendants-respondents refuted the allegations levelled by the plaintiff and reiterated the aforesaid facts to justify the punishment awarded to him.

Both the Courts below decided against the plaintiff.

Heard, there is no dispute that the enquiry was held against the plaintiff with regard to the embezzlement. The plaintiff had tried to challenge the enquiry proceedings while referring to the statements of the witnesses, which is not the scope of the Civil Court.

Having examined the enquiry reports, it transpires that on submission of the imputation of charges, the plaintiff had submitted the reply. Witnesses were examined in his presence and he was allowed to cross-examine them. He was also asked to show-cause and was provided opportunity to defend himself. He also examined the driver of the bus in his defence and the Enquiry Officer reached the conclusion that the plaintiff was guilty.

As regards the quantum of punishment, the Court cannot sit over to decide quantum of punishment, as decided by the punishing authorities. Even the previous conduct of the plaintiff was also not above board, as he himself had admitted that he was issued warnings for 17 times and his annual increments were stopped for 9 times. He was also placed under suspension twice. Thus, no fault could be found in the procedure, as adopted by the Enquiry Officer.

As such, finding no illegality, much less irregularity in the impugned judgments, the same stand endorsed.

No substantial question of law arises for determination. Dismissed.