- (1.) The petitioner has been working on the post of Conductor with the Haryana Roadways, Jind. He has prayed that the order dated 25.5.2004 (Annexure P.8) passed by the Disciplinary Authority i.e. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Jind dismissing him from service be quashed. The afore- mentioned order was upheld by the appellate authority but the punishment of dismissal was reduced by giving him last opportunity and reducing him at the minimum of pay scale for a period of five years. The petitioner was also not to be paid any financial benefits for the period spent by him under suspension or for the period spent out of service. However, that period was to be counted for all other benefits.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a Conductor with the Haryana Roadways. It is claimed that he has been awarded commendation certificate and appreciation certifies issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Jind (annexures P.1 and P.2). On 21.11.2002 (Annexure P.3) a charge sheet was issued to him contemplating infliction of major penalty under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1987 (for brevity 'the 1987 Rules'). The petitioner was charged with the allegation of mis-appropriation of an amount of Rs. 468/-. He submitted his reply to the charge sheet on 16.12.2002 (Annexure P.4) The reply was found unsatisfactory and the Accounts officer, Haryana Road Transport, Jind was appointed as an Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 25.6.2003 (Annexure P.5) holding that the charges against the petitioner were not proved. However, the General Manager on the perusal of the case file found that the inquiry officer failed to consider certain issues and recorded his dis-agreement with the report of the inquiry officer. The note of dis- agreement as recorded by the General Manager on five issues reads as under : "1. The inspection was carried out under the supervision of Shri Sultan Singh, Traffic Manager, Kaithal. Inquiry from him was also required to be made. 2. Copy of Rs. 9/- has been shown sold and thereafter number 53 has been closed. First digits of the tickets of this copy have not been shown and uptill now which have been closed, there is difference in their hand writing and figure of 53. If the numbers would have been closed by the Inspectors and you had closed number and number 53 was closed there would have also written first digit of the copy. 3. Police case or checking of cash is made under the circumstances when the Conductor do not admit his fault and he refuses to give unpunch tickets. 4. Combination of tickets from Karnal to Assandh is required to be made of Rs. 15/- + 3/- and not for Rs. 9/- + 9/- which have been produced by the witness, the same have been issued by the Conductor, from the new copy, after report was made against him as the Conductor did not give the same from the copy of Rs. 15/- + 3/- as the Inspector has taken unpunched tickets of Rs. 15/- + 3/- from him. Had the Conductor given the tickets of this combination, then the same would have been after the tickets attached with the report. 5. In the affidavit, the witness have stated that he came down from the bus for urine and in the meanwhile, the bus started and that he was left at the same place, this fact is not true. Because the labourers who were there would have stopped the Bus, by giving call as they were not even aware, where they are to go. Bihari Labourers who come to harvest the paddy they are not accompanied with the children, to whom tickets are not issued. So, not agreeing with the report of Inquiry Officer, I order for the issuance of show cause notice to Shri Kalam Singh C.125 for the termination of his services and the period spent after suspension restricted upto the extent of subsistence allowance." Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 24.7.2003 (Annexure P.6) to which the petitioner sent his reply on 8.8.2003 (Annexure P.7). Eventually, the General Manager, passed an order on 25.5.2004 (Annexure P.8) and the operative part of the same reads as under : "In this case the inspectors have taken unpunched tickets of Rs. 15/- + 3/- = Rs. 18/- in accordance with these instructions. There was no difference of opinion in this case and there was no problem to the Conductor due to which he gave unpunched ticket to the Inspectors, on the spot. But in this case, the Conductor, with a view to deceive the department and to defend himself, by issuing tickets of Rs. 9 + 9 (by doubling) and punching the same subsequently, produced some other person as witness by enticing some other person. As has been pointed out by the Conductor in his reply to the charge sheet that on reaching at Assandh he stopped the vehicle and after 20 minutes a person came there with whom there were tickets as told by the Conductor. In inquiry, during question answer, Shri Lehna Singh, Inspector and Ram Kumar Dhiman, Sub Inspector told that there were 26 passengers travelling without tickets, separately. They were not all together. It also shows that the conductor has prepared the witness subsequently and the witness is false." The afore-mentioned order of termination of his service has been modified in appeal by awarding the petitioner the punishment of bringing him at the minimum of pay scale for a period of five years. It has further been held that no financial benefits are to be given to the petitioner for the period spent under suspension or the period spent out of service. The operative part of the order dated 30.9.2004 (Annexure P.10) reads as under : "In this way, after careful perusal of all the circumstances, and the appeal of the appellant, I have come to the conclusion that the appellant is not just fully innocent in the matter, however, keeping in view his previous service record that during the previous service, his record has been satisfactory, keeping a lenient view against him, I offer him last opportunity of service in the Transport Department and order to bring him, at the minimum of pay scale for a period of five years. No financial benefit will be given to the appellant for the period spent under suspension or the period spent out of service. But this period will be counted for all other benefits."
(3.) Mr. R.N. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Punishing Authority-cum-General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Jind has committed grave error in law by not handing over a copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner before recording the note of dissent on the five issues. According to the learned counsel it was mandatory for the Punishing Authority-cum- General Manager to supply to the petitioner a copy of the inquiry report and report of dissent before issuing a show cause notice expressing his opinion that the petitioner was guilty of the charges levelled against him. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on para 29 of the judgement of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director ECIL v. B. Karunakar, 1993 4 SCC 727 and a Division Bench judgement of this Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2006 3 SCT 799. He has prayed that the impugned order passed by the appellate authority dated 30.9.2004 (Annexure P.10) be set aside and the petitioner be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.;