V.K. Bali, J. - (1.) PLAINTIFF , a bus driver of Punjab Roadways, successfully challenged order of his dismissal dated March 18, 1988 before the trial Court. However, judgment and decree passed by the trial Court on November 9, 1990 which was subject matter of appeal was set aside by the first appellate Court on December 21, 1992. It is against this judgment that the plaintiff has come up in the present appeal.
(2.) MR . Chopra, learned counsel for the appellant, on the basis of judgment in Hans Raj Gupta v. State of Punjab and Ors., 1992 (1) RSJ 462 :, 1992 (1) SLR 146 P&H, contends that the report subject matter of charge against plaintiff -appellant was not given to him. He also contends that even though the Presenting Officer before the Enquiring Officer was Assistant Divisional Manager and the enquiry was conducted by the Divisional Manager, the appellant was not asked to have the assistance of any one and for that reason as well the order of dismissal had to be invalidated and was rightly invalidated by the trial Court. There cannot be any quarrel with regard to the position of law as laid down in Hans Raj Gupta's case (Supra). However, reading of the plaint shows that not even a word was mentioned to say that preliminary report was not given to appellant or that at any stage when the enquiry was going on, Appellant was asked to have the assistance of any one. These are essentially questions of fact and finding on the questions of fact could be given only if the matter was pleaded and adequate opportunity was afforded to respondent -State to rebut the same. The omnibus pleadings in the plaint that the order of dismissal was illegal, void and unwarranted, cannot, in the very nature of things, be said to have embedded in it the pleadings on specific matters, like, giving of enquiry report or assistance of anyone else during the course of enquiry. This contention of learned counsel has, thus, to be repelled. The first Appellate Court after appraisal of the evidence came to a right conclusion that there was no bias in the mind of the Enquiry Officer and the circumstances taken into count by the trial Court holding to the contrary could not possibly prove any bias. I have gone through the judgments passed by the Courts below and it really appears to me that the trial court was not correct by holding that the Enquiring Authority had bias in the mind and the question of dismissing the plaintiff was foregone conclusion.
(3.) MR . Chopra is, however, on stronger footing to urge that the punishment given to the appellant is not commensurate to the allegations that were levelled against him. All that was alleged against plaintiff was that he made request to the Traffic Manager to make payment of fine amount of Rs.200/ - which he had to pay to the District Transport Officer, Kapurthala. The Traffic Manager told plaintiff that the case had been referred to the Divisional Manager, Chandigarh for according sanction of Rs.200/ - as the driver was not at fault. The Divisional Manager had sought clarification whether the person concerned had produced court chit in lieu of registration certificate which was taken into possession by the Court in a challan case. However, plaintiff instead of clarifying the said position, uttered words in Punjabi which, insofar, as can be translated into English, would run thus: - "Whatever despotism is prevalent on account of you, I would remove the same." Plaintiff also shook table with force and said, "I know how to take the money and I will get the money with the help of the Court and whatever you can do, you may do." It requires to be mentioned that plaintiff was employed with Punjab Roadways in 1977 and it is after 18 years of his service that he was asked to quit on the allegations, as referred to above. Plaintiff is admittedly ex -serviceman and has spotless service career of 18 years. He remained the President of Drivers' Union for five -six years and even during that period there was no complaint against him. The Court in Gurcharan Singh v. Punjab State and Ors., (1088) 94 PLR 370 held that, "it is obvious that in order to determine the quantum of punishment the punishing authority had to take into consideration numerous factors like his previous conduct, number of years put in service, prejudice likely to be suffered by him in his future service, financial losses likely to be suffered, existence or absence of any mitigating circumstances etc. etc. Thus, in order to come to a conclusion for appropriate punishment, the previous record and conduct was one of the necessary facts to be taken into consideration;";