Nika Ram Thakur vs State of H.P. and Others

V.P. Gupta, J.—The Petitioner was employed as a Conductor in the Himachal Pradesh Government Transport in the year 1968. During the course of employment an enquiry was held against him under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, (hereinafter called the Rules of 1965).

The Petitioner was informed about the enquiry proposed to be held against him vide Annexure A and the statement of articles of charges, statement of imputations and the list of documents as also the list of witnesses were supplied to him which are appended With Annexure A as Annexures I to IV. The Petitioner denied the charges levelled against him vide reply, dated 14th March, 1968, (Annexure D).

The General Manager, Himachal Pradesh Government Transport, appointed Shri Y.D. Sanadhya as inquiring authority on 20th May, 1968, (Annexure E). The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 18th December, 1968, (Annexure H) and held that the charges levelled against the Petitioner are proved. After receipt of the enquiry report the General Manager, Himachal Pradesh Government Transport, provisionally came to the conclusion that the Petitioner was not a fit person to be retained in the service of the department. The Petitioner was given a show cause notice on 3rd February, 1969, (Annexure I) to make any representation. The Petitioner made representations and finally the Commissioner of Transport, Himachal Pradesh, vide order, dated 17th August, 1971, ordered the removal from service with effect from the date of the receipt of the order (Annexure O). The Petitioner appealed to the Government against this order but the appeal was rejected and the Petitioner was informed about the rejection of the appeal vide memorandum, dated 28th December, 1973, issued from the Deputy General Manager for Commissioner Transport of Himachal Pradesh, (Annexure R).

The Petitioner has now in this writ petition challenged the order of removal, dated 17th August, 1971, (Annexure O) and the memorandum, dated 28th December, 1973, (Annexure R), regarding the rejection of his appeal.

The main allegations of the Petitioner are that the enquiry has not been conducted in accordance with Rule 14 of the Rules of 1965, and that he was not afforded ample opportunity to defend his case. It is alleged that he was not supplied with the copies of the documents and no reasons have been given in the impugned order.

A return was filed on behalf of the Respondents and the allegations of the Petitioner were denied.

Shri Kedar Ishwar, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, contended before us that the Inquiry Officer has not complied with the provisions of Rules 14(11), 14(15), 14(16) and 14(18) of the Rules of 1965. It was also contended that the disciplinary authority has not given any reasons for agreeing with the report of the Inquiry Officer, and further that the order of the disciplinary authority regarding removal of the Petitioner from service (Annexure O) as well as the order in appeal (Annexure R) do not contain any reasons and the two authorities have not applied their mind. It was then contended that Petitioner''s witness, Shri Laxmi Chand, was cross-examined by the Inquiry Officer which is not permissible. The learned Counsel further contended that the copies of the various documents and the statements were not supplied to the Petitioner in spite of the various demands made by the Petitioner.

Shri K.D. Sood, Advocate, appearing for the Respondents contended that no prejudice has been caused to the Petitioner and that he was afforded full opportunity at all stages. He contended that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with Rules of 1965, and the rules of natural justice and that the disciplinary authority has considered all the facts and circumstances before imposing the penalty. Regarding cross-examination of Shri Laxmi Chand, the learned Counsel contended that the statement of the witness was vague which was got clarified by the Inquiry Officer and in fact there was no cross-examination.

The enquiry proceedings file was produced before the Court by the learned Counsel for the Respondents.

We have considered the contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties.

The Articles of Charges against the Petitioner are as follows (Annexure I):

Article of Charge-I

That the said Shri Nika Ram while functioning as conductor during the period 1-1-68 and 8-1-68 tampered with Government record by altering/erasing the entries in the check slips Nos. 16217/9, dated 1-1-68 and 16217/46 dated 8-1-1968 and check-slip No. 15799/47 was torn.

Article of Charge-II

That the said Shri Nika Ram, Conductor during the period 12-1-68 temporarily misappropriated the Government cash Rs. 21.65 of Check slip No. 16225/16, dated 12-1-68 and 15799/47, dated 12/68 amounting to Rs. 15.60 and Rs. 6.05 respectively.

Article of Charge-III

That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office the said Shri Nika Ram, Conductor, while functioning as Conductor during the period 1-1-68, 8-1-68 and 12-1-68 has been found negligent in the performance of his duties.

The list of documents (Annexure III) by which the articles of charges were proposed to be sustained are as follows:

Check slip Nos. 16217/9, 16217/46, 15799/47 and 16225/16.

Reports of the Cashier, Bus Stand, Shimla-1.

Similarly, the list of witnesses {Annexure IV) by whom the articles of charges were proposed to be sustained are as follows:

Accountant, R.O. Dhalli.

Cashier, Bus Stand, Shimla-1.

P.T.C., R.O. Dhalli.

Under Rule 14(11) of the Rules of 1965, the inquiring authority shall if the Government servant fails to appear within the specified time or refuses or omits to plead, require the Presenting Officer to produce the evidence by which he proposes to prove the articles of charge, and shall adjourn the case to a later date not exceeding thirty days, after recording an order that the Government servant may, for the purpose of preparing his defence:

(i) inspect within five days of the order or within such further time not exceeding five days as the inquiring authority may allow, the documents specified in the list referred to in Sub-Rule (3);

(ii) submit a list of witnesses to be examined on his behalf;

(iii) give a notice within ten days of the order or within such further time not exceeding ten days as the inquiring authority may allow, for the discovery or production of any documents which are in the possession of Government but not mentioned in the list referred to in Sub-Rule (3).

In the present case, it is admitted position that there was no such order and no notice was given to the Petitioner in accordance with the provisions of Rule 14(11). Under this rule even if the Petitioner had failed to appear or refuses or omits to plead, still the Inquiry Officer is bound to record an order and give a notice to the Petitioner in accordance with the sub-paras (i), (ii) and (iii) of Rule 14(11).

Under Rule 14(15) the Inquiry Officer has a discretion, to allow the Presenting Officer to produce additional evidence not included in the list, but the order of the Inquiry Officer should disclose that such evidence is necessary and in such an event the delinquent Government servant is entitled to have, if he demands it, a copy of the list of further evidence proposed to be produced and an adjournment of the enquiry for three clear days before the production of such new evidence. The inquiring authority shall give the Government servant an opportunity of inspecting such documents before they are taken on record. The inquiring authority may also allow the Government servant to produce new evidence if it is of the opinion that the production of such evidence is necessary in the interest of justice.

In the present case the Inquiry Officer in his report, dated 18th December, 1968, (Annexure H) has relied upon the report of Jia Lal. P.T.C., who had submitted to Shri Anant Ram Tnakur a detailed report Exhibit 4 along with a note N-3. The statement of Shri Jia Lal was not recoided by the Inquiry Officer. In the list of witnesses (Annexure IV) name of P.T.C. is entioned but in the list of documents (Annexure 111) there is no mention of the report of the P.T.C. (i.e. Ex. 4 along with a note N-3). It definitely shows that the Inquiry Officer allowed additional documentary evidence against the Petitioner without complying with the provisions of Rule 14(15).

The enquiry proceedings file further shows that after the case for the disciplinary authority was closed, the Petitioner was not given any opportunity to state his defence orally or in writing as is required under Rule 14(16). This is again a serious omission on the part of the Inquiry Officer in the conduct of the proceedings.

Further, after the close of evidence on behalf of the disciplinary authority as well as the Petitioner, the inquiring authority has not put general questions to the Petitioner on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the purpose of enabling him to explain the circumstances appearing in evidence against him, as provided under Rule 14(18). In the present case, the Petitioner has not examined himself and therefore, the inquiring authority was bound to ask him generally the questions on the circumstances appearing against him. Thus it is again a violation of Rule 14(18) of the Rules of 1965.

From the aforesaid discussion it is clear that the enquiry conducted in the present case by the Inquiry Officer is not in accordance with the various rules. The Inquiry Officer vide report, dated 18th December, 1968, has held that the charges against the Petitioner are proved. The memorandum, dated 3rd February, 1969, by the General Manager (Annexure I) before issuing show cause notice states that after careful consideration of the enquiry report the disciplinary authority agrees with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and holds that the articles are proved, but no reasons are given in this memorandum. If the different charges are scrutinized then it is apparent that charges numbers 1 and 3 cannot co-exist. Similarly, the order of removal, dated 17ih August, 1971, (Annexure O) does not show that the disciplinary authority applied its mind to the enquiry file and the enquiry report. The disciplinary authority could either allow charge No. 1 or charge No. 3 to be proved because charge No. 3 only emanates from charge No. 1.

Regarding cross-examination of Laxmi Chand, we have gone through his statement and find that the witness was not in fact cross-examined. The witness gave contradictory statements at two stages, therefore, the Inquiry Officer wanted a clarification of the same.

The appellate order has not been produced before us and we cannot comment as to whether any reasons have given in this or not. Annexure R is only intimation regarding rejection of the appeal.

So far as the question with respect to the supply of copies to the Petitioner is concerned, the Respondents have denied that any demand was made by the Petitioner before the conclusion of the enquiry proceedings and we are of the view that the affidavit of the State to that extent has to be accepted and the allegations of the Petitioner are incorrect. It is, however, admitted that after the show cause notice the Petitioner again wanted copies some of which were not supplied to him. In this petition we need not discuss this question as the enquiry proceedings against the Petitioner are being quashed on grounds of non-compliance of the Rules of 1965, as mentioned above.

Thus we are of the view that the order of removal (Annexure O) passed against the Petitioner and the consequent rejection of his appeal, intimation regarding which was received by the Petitioner vide Annexure R are liable to be quashed on the grounds that the enquiry against the Petitioner has not been held in accordance with Rules of 1965 and is against the principles of natural justice and the same are accordingly quashed. The writ petition is, therefore, accepted with costs assessed at Rs. 200/-.