- (1.) The petitioner lias challenged the order of disciplinary authority/General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Kaithal dated January 23, 1990, terminating his services and the appellate order dated September 22, 1993 passed by the State Transport Commissioner, Haryana affirming in appeal the order of the disciplinary authority dated January 23, 1990, in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) The petitioner was employed as a Conductor in Haryana Roadways. He was posted as such with bus bearing Registration No. 3449 on May 20, 1986. Sh. Jia Lal Inspector and Bicha Ram, Adda Conductor checked the bus at Fairan and found that the petitioner had charged full fare of Rs. 36/- from 18 passengers from Narwana to Naher and Rs. 93/- from 31 passengers from Narwana to Kaloda, but had not issued any tickets to the passengers He embezzled the Government money to the tune of Rs. 129/-. The Inspector submitted a complaint to the disciplinary authority. The petitioner was placed under suspension Charge memo was served upon him, but he did not file reply to the same. A regular enquiry was ordered against him. The petitioner did not join the enquiry proceedings. The Enquiry Officer, after recording evidence, came to the following conclusions- "After reading all the documents including the report and statement given by the complainant present on the enquiry file I have reached the conclusion that the complainant has been able to prove the allegations levelled against the employee. Because the employee was directed to join the enquiry vide registered letters of this office but the employee did not come present knowingly before the enquiry officer. The non-attendance of the enquiry by the employee is proof of the fact that he accepts the allegations levelled against him and wants to say nothing in his defence. After carefully perusing the enquiry file and all the relevant facts and after seeming the registered letter and their acknowledgment I have no option but to hold the employee guilty. 1 consider Shri Dev Dut Conductor No. 243 fully guilty of the above case because he knowingly did not come present in the enquiry even after receipt of the letters pertaining to the enquiry. The enquiry file from pages 1 to 160 are sent to you for necessary action."
(3.) On receipt of the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority issued him a second show cause notice as to why the proposed punishment be not inflicted upon him. The petitioner was duly served with the show cause notice, but he did not file reply to the same. The disciplinary authority found that the charge of embezzlement of Govt, money stood proved against the petitioner and it ordered termination from service. The relevant portion of the order of the disciplinary authority dated January 23, 1990, reads as under:- "After receipt of the show cause notice the employee submitted no reply to that notice. Acknowledgment is available on the file. But before taking final decision 1 thought proper in the interest of justice to hear the employee personally on which a letter for personal hearing was issued vide this office memo No. 15190/ECC dated 18.12.1989 to the effect that he should come present for personal hearing on 12.1.90 at 9.00 a.m. otherwise ex-parte departmental proceedings would be taken against him. Even after receipt of that letter the employee did not come present for personal hearing due to which it is clear that he wanted to say nothing in his defence. Before taking any decision I have carefully perused the file. The employee was given full opportunity to defend himself. But he did not take advantage of any opportunity. Even on receipt of the letter he neither submitted a written reply nor came present. The allegations levelled against the employee were that on 20.5.86 when he was on duty on Bus No. 3449 then after charging Rs. 36/- from 18 passengers as fare from Narwana to Naher and Rs. 93/-from 31 passengers from Narwana to Kaloda he had not issued the tickets. By embezzling Rs. 129/- he had caused financial loss to the department. During the enquiry Shri Dev Dutt conductor did not come present even after affording opportunity a number of times; then Jia lal Inspector gave his statement and proved the allegations levelled against the employee. Even otherwise also, in the report which was submitted against the Conductor it was clearly mentioned that 18 passengers were travelling from Narwana to Naher and he did not issue tickets after charging Rs. 21- each and embezzled Rs. 36/- and had not issued tickets to 31 passengers from Narwana to Kaloda by charging Rs. 3/- each and has embezzled Rs. 93/-. In this manner Rs. 129/- were embezzled in all. The Inspector submitted unpunched tickets alongwith the report. Briefly I have reached the conclusion that the allegations levelled against the employee are fully proved. The employee despite the opportunity wanted to say nothing in his defence. Therefore I considering Dev Dutt Conductor No. 60/243 as guilty and do not think it proper to retain him in service due to the serious allegations of embezzling of Rs. 129/-. Therefore I order the termination of the services of Shri Dev Dutt No. 60/243 with immediate effect in public interest (Sewa Hit) and confine emoluments for the suspended period of 22.5.86 to 31.10.86 to the subsistence allowance.";