Laxmi Singh vs The Managing Director, Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation, Himachal Pradesh Shimla and The Manager, Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation, Tapri, Distt. Kinnaur, H.P.

Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge

Petitioner prayed for the following reliefs:-

(i) That the impugned orders dated 5.4.2011 rejecting the representation of the petitioner and 6.3.1992 terminating the services of the petitioner may kindly be declared illegal, unconstitutional and against the principal of natural justice and service jurisprudence and may kindly be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice and fair play.

(ii) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to reinstate the petitioner into service w.e.f. 6.3.1992 when he was wrongfully terminated along with all consequential benefits w.e.f. 6.3.1992.

Petitioner was engaged as a Conductor with the respondents in the year 1989. His probation period was two years. However, prior to the expiry of the same, a criminal case under Sections 307, 342, 380 & 451 IPC was initiated against him, as he allegedly embezzled public money. He pocketed money received by him towards sale of tickets for journey undertaken by the passengers in the bus in which he was posted as a Conductor. There is no dispute that petitioner stands eventually acquitted by this Court vide judgment dated 15.5.2010 passed in Cr. A. No. 705 of 1996 titled as State of H.P. vs. Laxmi Singh.

Thereafter petitioner made a representation in the year 2010 and approached this Court seeking re-instatement of his service. Vide judgment dated 6.1.2011 passed in CWP No. 8506 of 2010 titled as Laxmi Singh vs. Managing Director, HRTC and another, Division Bench of this Court disposed of the same by making following observations:-

It is submitted that the representation, Annexure P-6 is pending before the first respondent. There will be a direction to the first respondent to look into the matter and take appropriate decision on Annexure P-6 in accordance with law and justice after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the Writ Petition, by the petitioner.

With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s) if any.

Petitioner''s representation now stands disposed of in terms of impugned order dated 5.4.2011 (Annexure P-8), operative portion of which reads as under:-

AND WHEREAS, in compliance to the directions contained in judgment dated 06.01.2011, the petitioner was heard in person on 14.03.2011 and the representation Annexure P-6 has been considered. The petitioner has pleaded that his services were dispensed with on 06.03.1992. A criminal case was registered against him under Sections 451, 380, 342 IPC read with Section 307 in which he has been acquitted by Session Court as well as by the Hon''ble High Court of HP and he should be reinstated into service. From the instant case it is evident that the pleas raised by the petitioner vide his representation dated 15.07.2010 Annexure P-6 is not genuine as the petitioner was appointed as Conductor on 12.10.1990 and was placed under probation for a period of two years. He was involved in a serious ticketless travelling case during probation period and his work & conduct was not found satisfactory and his services were no longer required for which order was issued by RM Rekongpeo (Competent Authority) on 06.03.1992 during probation period. His appeals have been considered by the DM Shimla and ED which were considered and rejected on 21.10.1992 and 29.07.1993. The discharge from service during probation period is with reference to his service record and has nothing to do with the criminal case.

NOW THEREFORE, after careful consideration of the case the undersigned is of the considered opinion that the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority vide Office Order dated 06.03.1992 is appropriate and there is no reason to interfere with the order of disciplinary authority. The representation dated 15.07.2010 Annexure P-6 is considered and rejected being devoid of merit.

In the reply, respondents have clarified that services of the hearing and after completion of inquiry proceedings, it stands clarified that record of such inquiry was washed away in the flash flood in the year 1995. It also stands clarified that not only record pertaining to the petitioner but other record was also washed away along with 5-6 buses. Thus obviously there is no record available with the respondents with regard to said inquiry conducted by them. It is also to be seen that between the year 1994 upto 2010, petitioner did not raise the issue of his termination before any forum. It is not that petitioner''s services were terminated or he was discharged from service only on the basis of registration of a criminal case. Now why should Sh. Mohinder Singh Sharma, Regional Manager (Legal) of the respondents'' Corporation file a false affidavit with regard to the non-availability of record. Representation (Annexure P-6) was decided on the basis of the material available with the respondents and petitioner could not point out how his re-instatement is merited inspite of his acquittal in the criminal case. As already stands noticed, petitioner only sent a registered letter dated 10.5.1992, challenging his termination which according to the respondents, was illegal but then what transpired between the year 1992 till 2010 has not been so disclosed by him. Thus in my considered view even on the ground of delay and latches, present petition does not require interference and indulgence of this Court and consequently the same is dismissed.