Prithvi Singh vs H.R.T.C. and Others

V.K. Sharma, J.—The petition has been filed with the following prayer:

7 (i). That the order contained in Annexures A/1 and A/2 may be ordered to be quashed and set aside. Consequently, the Respondents may be directed to reinstate the applicant on the same place and post with all consequential benefits.

The Respondents have taken the following stand, vide para 6 (ii) of the reply:

6 (ii). The contents of this sub para are not denied to the extent that the applicant was deputed on 20.5.1990 with bus No. HPN-632 to cater a marriage party from Nahan to Shezadpur at 6 AM. Necessary check slip and way bill etc. was handed over to the applicant by the Adda Incharge, Nahan on 19.5.1990 with the directions to report to the marriage party at 6 AM on 20.5.90 and the bus have to come back same day from Shezadpur at 4 PM. However, the applicant reported to the marriage party on 20.5.1990 with unwashed and uncleaned bus and when the party objected to the same the applicant drove the vehicle back for washing purpose. He again reported the marriage party at 7.15 AM without washing the vehicle and thus the bus left Nahan at 7.30 AM therefore reached Shezadpur at about 9.30 AM. The Corporation being a public utility services on the one hand and a commercial organization on the other it was the duty of the applicant to make the journey to the marriage party comfortable/punctual and trouble free whereas on the way to Shezadpur the applicant was driving the bus rashly and without even caring for the speed breaker which resulted in great harassment to party. When the bus reached Shezadpur it was found that the driver was drunked. The passengers left for the marriage party living the driver in the bus when they came back from marriage party it was found that the driver was sleeping in the bus and he was awakened by the party but he told them that he is drunked by the time I am not fit to drive the vehicle and not drove the same. The party kept on waiting in the bus thereafter cut of some time the driver awoke up and told the party that now I am fit to drive the vehicle and at this assurance the driver started the bus for back journey, when the bus was coming out of the main bazaar many people told the applicant not to drive the vehicle from market since the road is narrow and suggested him to go through by pass but he did not care for the suggestion. Thereafter after some distance the bus hit a scooter which was parked on the road side which resulted in damage of the scooter. On this police came there and started investigation in the matter which took lot of time. The marriage party was getting late and they engaged a private truck from the Truck Operator Union for Rs. 750/- to carry them to Nahan. Rest of averments made in this para are wrong and therefore denied.

Some undisputed facts may be noticed first. On or about 20.5.1990, the Petitioner was working as Driver on the establishment of the Respondents, particularly Respondent No. 3. On 20.5.1990, he was detailed on duty with bus No. HPN-632 which was booked by one Vinod Kumar for taking a marriage party from Nahan to Shezadpur and back. It was alleged that the Petitioner consumed alcohol while on duty and thus, committed grave misconduct and dereliction of duty. Apart from that, it was also alleged that he did not adhere to the time schedule, drove the vehicle rashly and negligently and thereby caused an accident involving a scooter and since the bus was detained by the police, the marriage party had to arrange for alternative mode of transport, that is, a truck by paying Rs. 750/-. Since the said Vinod Kumar lodged a complaint with the Regional Manager, H.R.T.C., Nahan claiming a sum of Rs. 1909/- as refund/compensation, the Petitioner also caused monetary loss to the Corporation.

On the basis of the above alleged misconduct an inquiry was held against the Petitioner under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which culminated into the Petitioner being indicted for the alleged misconduct. Consequently, panelty of compulsory retirement was imposed upon him vide office order, dated 18.7.1994, Annexure A-I against which an appeal was filed by the Petitioner which was disposed of by the appellate authority, that is, the Managing Director of the Respondent-Corporation vide office order, dated 29.12.1994, Annexure A-2, which is to the following effect:

Whereas Shri Prithvi Singh, Ex-Driver of HRTC, Nahan Unit was compulsorily retired from service by the Divisional Manager, HRTC, Shimla vide office order No. DM (N)2209-E (DVR)/92-Disp. Prithvi dated 18.07.94.

And whereas the said Shri Prithvi Singh, Driver preferred an appeal dated Nil against the above penalty to the undersigned.

Now, therefore, the undersigned after careful consideration of the appeal, relevant record pertaining to the case, and in exercise of the powers vested in him under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and all other powers enabling him in this behalf find no point for any interference with the orders of Divisional Manager (Disciplinary Authority). Thus the penalty imposed by the Divisional Manager, Shimla (disciplinary authority) is upheld.

Sd/- Managing Director, Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Shimla-171 003.

It would be seen from the above office order, dated 29.12.1994, Annexure A-2 vide which the appeal filed by the Petitioner was disposed of by the Appellate Authority that the same does not stand the test of judicial scrutiny as it is not a speaking order and is rather a cryptic order. A bare reading of the order would go to show that there is no reference therein to the contentions raised by the Petitioner in the appeal and as such, the same cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed. Consequently, the disciplinary proceedings are ordered to be remitted to the Appellate Authority for decision afresh on the appeal filed by the Petitioner in accordance with law as also by taking into consideration the proportionality between the misconduct said to have been established against him and the penalty, if any, that may be imposed upon him in pursuance of the decision to be taken in the appeal, within three months from production of a copy of this judgment by the Petitioner within one month and after affording an opportunity of being heard to him, if so desired.

The petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.