Mehar Chand vs State of Haryana

Augustine George Masih, J.—Petitioner has approached this Court impugning the order dated 23.07.2009 (Annexure P-6), vide which the order of termination was passed by the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Kurukshetra-respondent No. 3, order dated 23.05.2013 (Annexure P-10), vide which the appeal of me petitioner was dismissed by the Additional Transport Commissioner, Haryana and the order dated 20.12.2013 (Annexure P-12) passed by the Principal Secretary to Government Haryana, Transport Department rejecting the 2nd appeal. It is the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as a Driver on contract basis through Employment Exchange on 12.06.1992. His services were regularized on 13.02.1996. He applied for a driving licence in the year 1983 as he was residing in Talcher Coliary Dhenkanoc, Cuttack (Orissa). This driving licence was issued to him on 17.06.1983. On the basis of the said licence, the petitioner was recruited on 12.06.1992. The said licence has been renewed from time to time. On 10.09.2001, a new driving licence was issued to the petitioner by the District Transport Officer, Kurukshetra, which has also been renewed from time to time.

A criminal vase was registered against the petitioner vide FIR dated 17.03.2001 under Sections 279, 304-A IPC, in which he was acquitted on 13.05.2003 (Annexure P-1). However, in a petition filed under the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Act, it was found that the driving licence possessed by the petitioner was fake at the time when an accident had taken place. The said licence was numbered as M-3751 dated 12.06.1983 issued from Cuttack. The learned Judge of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal appointed a Local Commissioner to verify the correctness of the licence in question. As per the report submitted by the Local Commissioner, no such driving licence was ever issued to the petitioner. A finding was thus, recorded by the Tribunal that the petitioner did not possess a valid driving licence and accordingly, the compensation, which was awarded, became the liability of the respondents and since the petitioner was a Driver, he was also held responsible for the same. On receipt of the Award passed by the Tribunal, departmental action was initiated against the petitioner. In the said enquiry, which was held against the petitioner, the plea taken by the petitioner was that he had two driving licences one driving licence No. 3751 of 1983 issued on 12.06.1983 and the other was driving licence No. 656/83/84 issued on 17.06.1983. The verification of the driving licence No. 656/83/84, on enquiry, was found to be genuine and accordingly, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority proceeded to hold that as per the application submitted by the petitioner and the certificate attached thereto, the driving licence, on which basis the petitioner had obtained appointment, was licence No. 3751 of 1983. It proceeded to dismiss the appeal. Thereafter, in the 2nd appeal, initially the matter was referred back to the competent authority for re-verification of the driving licence and thereafter, the final order dated 20.12.2013 has been passed rejecting the appeal on the ground that the petitioner did not have a valid driving licence at the time of his appointment and, therefore, the order of his termination is in accordance with law.

On the basis of these factual assertions, counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner admittedly, had two driving licences and in similar circumstances, two Division Benches of this Court in CWP No. 1480 of 1993 titled as Suraj Mal v. The State of Haryana and others, decided on 02.02.1995 and in CWP No. 17032 of 2006 titled as Raj Pal v. State of Haryana and others, decided on 24.01.2008, had proceeded to hold that since one of the driving licences possessed by the petitioners was found to be genuine where they were holding two driving licences although one has been found to be bogus, on the basis of which they had sought appointment, the Court proceeded to reinstate the petitioners and granting them the requisite benefits except for the pay for the period they were not in service. He accordingly, contends that similar treatment may be meted out to the petitioner as well and the impugned orders be set aside. His further contention is that the petitioner has served the respondents for a period of 19 years and, therefore, instead of terminating him from service, the petitioner may be compulsorily retired.

On 31.01.2014, when the case was taken up for hearing, following order was passed:--

"It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the original driving licence, which was submitted by the petitioner along with the application, is numbered 656/83-84 issued on 17.06.1983.

The order dated 20.12.2013 passed by the Principal Secretary to Government Haryana, Transport Department (Annexure P-12) at page 59 depicts that the licence, which was submitted by the petitioner along with his application seeking appointment, is numbered M 3751 dated 12.06.1983.

To verify the correctness of the assertion made by the counsel, for the petitioner vis-�-vis the order passed by the Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Transport Department, dated 20.12.2013, direction is issued to the Director General, State Transport, Haryana to produce the personal records of the petitioner, which contain the application along with the copy of the driving licence submitted along with the same for appointment.

Copy of the writ petition be supplied to Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

Adjourned to 10.02.2014.

Copy of the order be given dasti to the learned State counsel under the signatures of the Special Secretary of this Court."

In compliance with the order passed by this Court, learned counsel for the State has produced the original records containing the application of the petitioner, copy of the driving licence as also the affidavit filed along with the application. A perusal of the same shows that the petitioner in the application had mentioned the licence No. as M-3751 dated 12.06.1983. Along with the said application, he had also submitted an affidavit dated 25.09.2001, in which also the driving licence number is the same. Even the copy of the driving licence, which has been appended, bears the same number. The contention thus, of the counsel for the petitioner as was made at the initial stage when the case was taken up for hearing has been found to be incorrect and thus cannot be accepted.

Another Division Bench in CWP No. 8420 of 2003 titled as Jagmal Singh v. State of Haryana and others, decided on 11.04.2005, in the similar facts as in the present case, has dismissed the writ petition holding therein that a candidate to secure employment on the basis of a driving licence, which is not genuine and has been found to be bogus on verification, is not entitled to continue in service. Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of District Collector and Chairman, Vizianagram v. M. Tripura Sundra Devi, 1990 (4) SLR 237, it is contended that where the appointment is achieved on the basis of a fraudulent document, it would amount to a fraud on public employment and no Court should be a party to the perpetuation of fraudulent practice.

On considering the factual matrix of the case, I am of the considered view that the petitioner could not, in any case, possess two driving licences at a given time. That would be in violation of the Statutory provisions, as contained under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is admitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner possessed two driving licences at the time when he had sought appointment to the post of Driver. This itself indicates that the petitioner had violated the law and there should not be any sympathy for such a person who disrespects the law. In any case, the driving licence, on which reliance was placed by the petitioner for seeking appointment, having been found to be fake clearly proves that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification for appointment to the post of Driver. If a candidate does not possess the qualification for, appointment to the post and the certificate, which is produced, is found to be fake, the consequence has to be faced by such a candidate even if he has continued with the department for a long time. Merely because the petitioner in the present case has served the respondents for a period of 19 years, as has been stated by the counsel for the petitioner, would not condone the ineligibility of the petitioner for consideration for appointment to the post. As a matter of fact, because of a fake driving licence possessed by the petitioner, the same would amount to a criminal offence and if a person violates the provisions of the law, no sympathy, in such a situation, can be shown to that person, who has no respect for the law. This Court, in this view of the matter, is not inclined to exercise its extra-ordinary equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioner. In any case the orders dated 23.05.2013 (Annexure P-10) and dated 20.12.2013 (Annexure P-12) passed by the competent authority being in accordance with law do not call for any interference by this Court.

The writ petition, therefore, stands dismissed.