- (1.) The petitioners herein were appointed as Casual Drivers in the year 1996 in the respondents-Corporation on the basis of the driving licences produced by them. Subsequently, on a thorough investigation conducted by the authorities of the Corporation, it was revealed that the driving licences produced by the petitioners are not genuine. Subsequently, show-cause notices were issued to each of the petitioners and the petitioners submitted their explanations contending that the driving licences issued by the licensing authorities are genuine. Not satisfied with the said explanations, termination orders were passed by the respective Depot Managers against the petitioners. The same were questioned in W.P.Nos.613/97,1492,2500,2715 and 2973 of 1997. The petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.28061/1996,614,2349 and 3907 of 1997 have also filed appeals before the appellate authorities which were ultimately rejected. Aggrieved by the said orders, writ petitions (numbers of which are referred supra) are filed.
(2.) It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the allegation of the Corporation that the petitioners have secured employment on the basis of fake driving licences amounts to serious misconduct and as per the Regulations of the Corporation, the Corporation is bound to conduct an enquiry and give sufficient opportunity to the petitioners before passing the orders of termination. It is, therefore, contended that since the impugned orders were passed without conducting any enquiry as aforesaid, the same are liable to be set aside. Reliance is placed upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Union of India and Ors. v. Jayakumar Parida, 1996 (2) ILJ 710 wherein it was held that the order of termination passed by the employer without giving any notice or sufficient opportunity to the employer is unsustainable in law.
(3.) Admittedly, the petitioners are supposed to produce 'valid' driving licence so as to seek employment as Driver. In fact, it is one of the conditions that is stipulated in the orders of appointment issued to the petitioners. The condition is that the services of the casual driver will be terminated in case his driving licence/certificates produced by him at the time of recruitment are found bogus/non-genuine. While so, it came to light that the driving licences produced by the petitioners are not genuine. Therefore, notices were issued to each of the petitioners calling upon them to show cause why they should not be terminated from service for producing fake driving licences. When once the employer disputes the genuineness of the driving licences produced by the petitioner- drivers, the burden lies upon the persons who produced them to prove that they are not non-genuine. The same is the view taken by a Division Bench of this Court recently in Writ Appeal No. 1024/1996 by Judgment dated 25-7-1996. In their attempt to discharge their burden, the petitioners have submitted explanations stating that the driving licences produced by them were issued by the authorities and that, therefore, they are genuine. Thus, they could not satisfactorily discharge their burden. Under these circumstances, when the very certificate which is the basis for appointing the petitioners as Drivers has been proved to be non-genuine, the respondents had no other alternative except to terminate their services as it would not be in the interests of the Corporation in general and in the interests of the travelling public* in particular to retain such drivers who do not possess valid driving licences. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, based upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Union of India v. Jayakumar Parida (supra), that the petitioners were not given 'sufficient opportunity' to disprove the allegation before passing the termination orders, does not deserve any weight in view of the latest Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Director General of Police v. Mrityunjoy Sarkar, AIR 1997 SC 249. In that case, the employees, who were appointed as Constables in the West Bengal State Armed Police, were found to have produced fictitious record from the Employment Exchange and secured employment. They were, therefore, discharged from service without giving any notice. The sa'id orders were questioned before the Calcutta High Court and the Calcutta High Court set aside the discharge orders. The matter was carried to the Supreme Court by the State Government. The Supreme Court observed thus: "Principles of natural justice require that they should be given reasonable opportunity of representation in the enquiry to be conducted and appropriate orders with reasons in support thereof need to be passed. It is settled legal position and the said procedure has not been followed. Under these circumstances, the High Court had not committed any error in dismissing the appeal. It would be open to the appellants to issue notice to all the respondents and consider their case and then pass appropriate orders with reasons, however brief they may be, in support thereof within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The said notice shall be given to the respondent stating the grounds on which they seek to discharge them and the respondents are directed to submit their objections, if any, and the material in support thereof within one month thereafter. After receipt of the objections, the appellants are directed to consider the objections and pass appropriate orders within six weeks thereafter and to communicate the same to all the respondents with acknowledgement due. The order, as stated earlier, should contain concise reasons in support of their conclusions." (Emphasis supplied) A careful reading of the Judgment of the Supreme Court (cited) makes it clear that the order of termination without issuing any notice is bad. The Supreme Court further made it clear that the authorities can pass orders of termination after issuing notices to the employees. In the cases on hand, the petitioners were duly given notices before serving the orders of termination. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that they were not given opportunity before passing the orders of termination, has no merits. I am of the view that the authorities have given 'sufficient opportunity' to the petitioners by issuing show-cause notices of termination and the petitioners, however, have failed to utilise the opportunity given by the Corporation and discharge the burden cast upon them. There are no merits in the writ petitions.;