Joginder Pal vs State of Punjab and Others

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.—The petitioner, who is working on the post of Driver with the Department of Transport, State of Punjab has filed the present petition impugning the order dated 11.11.2011, whereby he has been ordered to be compulsorily retired from service. Further challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 29.5.2012 passed by the Additional Secretary (Punjab Govt., Transport Department), whereby the statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 11.11.2011 has been dismissed. The petitioner had been issued a charge sheet on 12.10.2010, wherein a charge had been levelled against him that while driving a Punjab Roadways Bus on 14.6.2010 an accident had been caused by hitting a private truck in which 15 passengers had been injured and amongst them three passengers had died. The charge sheet contained the charge that the accident had occurred due to driving the bus at a fast speed and as such there had been an alleged negligence on the part of the petitioner, who was driver of the bus concerned. It is not in dispute that the Inquiry Officer had exonerated the petitioner in the findings furnished. On 29.3.2012 the Director, State Transport, Punjab recorded a dissenting note in terms of disagreeing with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer. The reasoning furnished in the dissenting note would be relevant and the same reads in the following terms:

Case has been perused by the undersigned. Enquiry Officer has exonerated you in his enquiry report on the basis that pressure of the bus was leaked and break of the bus was failed. However, as per the report and statement of departmental witnesses, it is clear that at the time of accident the operation meter of bus is 2.5 and 3.0 and this pressure was six hour later than the accident. The breaks of the bus could not be failed in such pressure. The departmental witnesses have clarified that the signs of tyres after applying breaks were visible to much distance on the road. Enquiry officer gave findings ignoring this fact. For the above said reasons and not agreeing with the inquiry report. Therefore, dissenting note has been issued to you.

The petitioner was furnished with the dissenting note along with a copy of the inquiry report and had been granted one month time to respond to the same. After considering the reply furnished by the petitioner a show cause notice proposing the imposition of a major penalty under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1970 dated 3.5.2011 was served upon the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice on 17.5.2011. It is after consideration of the reply to the dissenting note as also the reply furnished to the show cause notice that the competent authority passed the impugned order compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service. Vide impugned order it was held that the petitioner would get pension as per Rule 5.32 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. II. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred a statutory appeal against the order dated 11.11.2011 in terms of passing of the order dated 29.5.2012. Such appeal also had been dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard.

Learned counsel would vehemently argue that the order, whereby the petitioner has been directed to be compulsorily retired is totally unjustified as there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner while driving the bus. Learned counsel would even refer to the findings of the Inquiry Officer, whereby he had been exonerated of the charge of being negligent. It has further been argued that even a dissenting note was contrary to the findings of the Inquiry Officer inasmuch as the fact that the pressure in the power brakes of the bus had leaked, had not been taken into account.

I find myself unable to accept the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. It is well settled that the scope of judicial scrutiny in relation to such administrative decision would be limited to the decision making process and not to the decision itself. Learned counsel has not been able to point out any irregularity or illegality in the departmental proceedings that had been initiated against the petitioner and which had finally culminated in passing of the impugned order. It is not even the case of the petitioner that there has been any violation of the principles of natural justice. A perusal of the dissenting note appears to be relevant, whereby, it has been clearly noticed that the brakes of the bus had not failed and it was the petitioner himself, who was to blame for the accident that had occurred. This Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not sit as a Court of Appeal so as to reappraise and re-appreciate the evidence.

I find no basis that would warrant interference in the impugned order dated 11.11.2011 (Annexure P-6) as also order dated 29.5.2012 (Annexure P-7). The petition, accordingly, is dismissed. Petition dismissed.