Rishi Dev (Ex. Driver No. 194) vs State of Haryana and Others

Viney Mittal, J.—Whether a driver employed with the State Transport undertaking and having been convicted for criminal rashness and

negligence for causing an accident is entitled to reinstatement after suffering the entire sentence? This question has been raised by petitioner, Rishi

Dev, in the present petition.

Petitioner, Rishi Dev, was employed as a driver with Haryana Roadways. While working in the aforesaid capacity on December 6, 1990 and

while driving a bus of Haryana Roadways an accident was caused by him at Transport.Chowk, Chandigarh. As a result o f the a foresaid accident,

two persons died. A criminal case under Sections 279/304-A of the India Penal Code was registered against the petitioner vide FIR No. 427

dated December 26, 1996, Police Station East, Chandigarh. The petitioner was tried for the aforesaid offences and was ultimately convicted by

the learned trial Magistrate vide judgment dated July 18, 1995. He was convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of

Rs. 2000/-. The appeal filed by the petitioner also failed before the learned Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. However, this Court on a revision filed by

the petitioner upheld his conviction but reduced the sentence to nine months. Accordingly, the petitioner underwent the aforesaid sentence and was

ultimately released from Jail on March 30, 1999.

Upon his release, the petitioner made an attempt to rejoin his duties with General Manager, Haryana Roadways Bhiwani. However, disciplinary

proceedings were initiated against him and vide order dated July 16, 1999, the service of the petitioner were terminated. An appeal filed by the

petitioner was dismissed by the Transport Commissioner vide order dated July 10, 2000. The petitioner was aggrieved against the aforesaid

termination order and maintained that persons similarly situated and having been convicted by the Criminal court were still ordered to be reinstated.

In this regard, the petitioner relied upon the cases of one Mahabir Singh who was reinstated in service by General Manager, Haryana Roadways,

Hisar and one Jagmohan, who was ordered to be reinstated also by General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hisar even after their conviction under

Sections 279/304-A of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the petitioner served a legal notice claiming similar relief. He also approached this

Court through a Civil Writ Petition bearing No. 466 of 2003. The aforesaid writ petition filed by the petitioner was ordered to be disposed of by

this Court vide order dated January 16, 2003 and, consequently, the respondents were directed to decide the claim of the petitioner. In pursuance

of the aforesaid directions, an order dated May 12, 2003 has been passed by the Transport Commissioner, Haryana. The order of termination

passed against the petitioner has been upheld. It has been observed that since the petitioner had caused accident causing the loss of two lives, the

responsible duty of driving a bus could not be reassigned to him. The order dated May 12, 2003 passed by the Transport Commissioner has been

appended as Annexure P/7 with the present petition. The petitioner has impugned the order of his termination and also order Annexure P/7 through

the present petition.

The claim of the petitioner has been contested by the respondents. The facts noticed in the order Annexure P/7 have been reasserted. It has

been maintained by the respondents that since the petitioner had been convicted of criminal negligence in driving a bus by the criminal Court and

the aforesaid conviction had been upheld up to this Court, therefore, the petitioner could not be taken back in service even after suffering the entire

sentence.

We have heard Shri D.K. Jangra, Advocate, counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Anmol Rattan Sidhu, learned Additional Advocate

General, Haryana appearing for the respondents and with their assistance have also gone through the record of the case.

Shri Jangra, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has primarily raised two arguments. Firstly, it has been argued by the learned Counsel

that the conviction of the petitioner by a criminal Court under Sections 279/304-A of the Indian Penal Code, did not amount to conviction for an

offence involving a moral turpitude. Accordingly, it has been argued that even after the aforesaid conviction and after undergoing the complete

sentence awarded to him, the petitioner was still entitled to reinstatement in service and, in any case, on account of the aforesaid conviction, the

petitioner could not be ordered to be terminated from service. Secondly, it has been argued by the learned Counsel that the Transport Department

was following a policy of pick and choose, inasmuch as in cases which were similar to that of the petitioner i.e. where a driver of the Haryana

Roadways had been convicted for criminal negligence or rashness for causing accident, the convicted driver had been ordered to be reinstated

after suffering the entire sentence on the ground that there was no moral turpitude in the commission of the aforesaid offence. Specific reliance has

been placed by the petitioner on two orders Annexures P/4 and P/5 whereby two persons namely, Mahabir Singh driver and Jagmohan, even after

having been convicted by criminal Court for having caused an accident, were ordered to be reinstated after suffering the entire sentence and the

view taken was that since the conviction was not for committing an offence involving moral turpitude, therefore, the employees were ordered to be

reinstated. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has, thus, contended that even the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement.

We have duly considered the aforesaid contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. However, we do not find any merit in the same.

The facts are not in dispute. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had caused an accident on December 6, 1990, while driving the bus at

Transport Chowk, Chandigarh. Two lives were lost in the aforesaid accident. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-by the learned trial Court. His appeal before the learned Sessions Judge failed.

However, this Court, while upholding the conviction of the petitioner, reduced his sentence to nine months. In these circumstances, the petitioner

underwent his entire sentence and was. released from jail on March 30, 1999. It is, thus, clear that the criminal negligence and rashness of the

petitioner, as had been found by the learned trial Magistrate for causing the aforesaid accident, was upheld up to this Court. It is only that his

sentence was reduced. Therefore, the only question which remains relevant for adjudication is as to whether the petitioner having caused a serious

accident by his criminal negligence and rashness and having caused the loss of two lives was still entitled to be reinstated after suffering the sentence

or could it be said that once having been found criminally negligent and, rash in his driving, he should not be reassigned the same job all over again.

In our considered view, the answer to the question has to be in the negative. As noticed above, the petitioner was employed as driver with

Haryana Roadways. His primary and only duty was to drive the bus of the Roadways. The aforesaid duty was to be performed by him with care

and diligence. He had to keep in mind that while driving a bus he was not only custodian of the public property (bus) but was also the immediate in

charge of the lives of the passengers travelling in the bus and was also to take care that the pedestrians and other users of the road were not

caused any danger by his recklessness. Obviously, while driving a bus, the petitioner did not care to use proper caution and diligence. This act of

his resulted in loss of two lives. The rash and negligent driving by the drivers of heavy vehicles is on the increase. The safety regulations and the

traffic control rules are completely ignored by such rash and careless drivers. While driving heavy vehicles, the drivers of such vehicles develop'' an

indifferent and contemptuous attitude towards the other road users. The road accidents by such reckless drivers, cause loss of a large number of

human lives. In these circumstances, it cannot be claimed by an errant driver that merely because he had suffered a sentence of few years/months,

would wash away his misconduct and, thereafter, he should be treated as entitled to reinstatement with a license once again to drive negligently.

We cannot accept the aforesaid plea raised on behalf of the petitioner.

At this stage, we may also notice the second argument raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner to the effect that in some other cases, the

Haryana Roadways itself has ordered the reinstatement of the convicted drivers, after they had completed their sentence. In this regard, two

instances have been pointed out by the petitioner wherein such a course had been adopted by the Department. However, we cannot countenance

the aforesaid action of the department. In the case of a convicted driver, the relevant fact is not as to whether the conviction of the driver had been

for an offence involving moral turpitude or not but the question to be considered is as to whether the driver involved in the accident was in fact

guilty of criminal negligence and rashness in the performance of his duty. If an errant driver had been so held by the criminal Court and convicted

on that basis, then of course the aforesaid conviction would be a factor which has to be taken into consideration before the said driver is put back

into service for driving once again. From the perusal of the order Annexure P/7, we find that the Transport Commissioner had himself noticed that

the Haryana Roadways was a large department ft appear that different authorities had taken different kind of action in some cases. Alfaugn, we

find that the reinstatement of similarly situated drivers such as the petitioner, would not justify the reinstatement of the petitioner, but all the same we

are of the view thereform policy has to be adopted by the State Government dealing with such a situation. In our considered view, the State

Government is duty bound in law to consider the safety of the passengers, safety of the other road users and also loss of the public property before

any order for reinstatement of such a convicted driver is to be made. The question of a driver having not been convicted for a moral turpitude is

wholly irrelevant in such matters. As a matter of fact, the finding of criminal court with regard to the negligence of driver and consequential

conviction, would actually amount to a finding with regard to the negligent performance of his duties i.e. driving by a convicted driver.

In these circumstances, we do not find any merit in the present petition. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

However, a copy of the present judgment be sent to the Chief Secretary of Punjab, Chief Secretary of Haryana and Advisor to the

Administrator of the Union Territory, Chandigarh for taking necessary action as per our observations made above with a request that necessary

guidelines be issued to all concerned that in future no reinstatement of a driver convicted for an offence u/s 304-A of the Indian Penal Code be

ordered merely on the ground that the offence for which he had been convicted did not involve moral turpitude. The directions contained in this

judgment be complied with forthwith.