AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. - (1.) 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 the 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.
(2.) 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 case 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.
(3.) 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.;