M.M.KUMAR, J. - (1.) The services of the petitioner has been terminated on the ground that he sought employment on the basis of a fake driving licence. It has also come on record that in case FIR No. 56 dated 13.5.2000, registered at Police Station Kalayat, the petitioner alleged to have caused accident. The victims of the accident made claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for brevity, 'the Tribunal'). According to the impugned order dated 14.6.2006 (P-6) an amount of Rs. 2,40,000/-, 1,97,000/- and 1,51,000/- along with 9% interest have been awarded to various persons. In its award dated 12.02.2002, the Tribunal has also recorded categorical finding that the petitioner was holding a fake licence. It was ordered that initial payment was to be made by the Insurance Company and thereafter it was to be reimbursed by the respondent-State. The total amount suffered by the department is Rs. 6,65,543/-.
(2.) The fact that driving licence was fake at the time when he joined service, has been admitted by the petitioner. It is appropriate to mention that the General Manager vide its order dated 25.2.2004 has imposed a punishment of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect upon the petitioner while taking a lenient view. The aforementioned view has been reversed by the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government Haryana, Transport Department after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The aforementioned course has been adopted when an appeal filed by one Subhash Chander was being heard by the Financial Commissioner and he had cited the order of the General Manager dated 25.02.2004 to argue that the petitioner was given lenient punishment whereas he was dismissed from service when the charges were identical. The views of the Financial Commissioner, is evident from the operative para of the impugned order, which reads as under:- "Whereas while reviewing the punishment order passed by the General Manager it was found that the same was not in consistence with the severity of the offence committed by Shri Mahabir Singh. It was therefore decided to review the whole matter under the provision of Rule 14 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1987 and a show cause notice accordingly was issued to him on 16.9.2005 as to why he should not be dismissed from service. In response to that show cause notice Shri Mahabir Singh filed his reply on 13.10.2005 and made submissions like that Rule 14 is not applicable in his case, the findings in the enquiry report regarding his fake licence were not based on cogent evidence etc. He further submitted that DTO Kaithal had issued a new driving licence to him in 2001. He also pointed out that a large number of drivers who were found guilty of holding fake licences in similar circumstances by the Tribunal are still in service and their services were not terminated. He asked for personal hearing which was granted by me on 5.6.2006. The legal issue raised by Shri Mahabir Singh regarding non applicability of Rule 14 in his case has been examined. Rule 35 of Haryana Transport Department, Group-C (Haryana Roadways Services Rule 1995) provides that the matter relating to disciplinary, penalty, appeal shall be governed by the Haryana Civil Services (P&A) Rules, 1987 as amended from time to time. Thus the applicability of Rule 14 of HCS (P&A) rules is legal and valid. During the course of his personal hearing Shri Mahabir Singh admitted that he has joined services by submitting fake driving licence and pleaded for mercy. I have gone through the facts of this case and found that the orders passed by General Manager for retaining Shri Mahabir Singh in service are not only erroneous but also a bad precedent for similarly situated cases. Hence, the same are quashed. When a driver drives a bus, lives of so many passengers and other road users are in his hand. We can not give liberty to a person who joined service in fraudulent manner by submitting a fake driving licence and kill somebody at will. In such cases no leniency is warranted. Similar view has been held by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in a recent judgment. Under these circumstances, Shri Mahabir Singh is dismissed from service forthwith. I would also like to direct the Transport Commissioner to put up all such cases of those drivers who joined service by submitting fake driving licences and the Department had to pay heavy compensation as per court directions issued by MACT and who are still in service."
(3.) Mr. Ashwani Bakshi, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the tenor and language of Rule 14 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 (for brevity, 'the 1987 Rules'), does not clothe the Financial Commissioner with the power to revise the order, especially when Rule 35 of the Haryana Transport Department (Group-C) Haryana Roadways Service Rules, 1995 (for brevity, 'the 1995 Rules') is kept in view. According to the learned counsel, Rule 35 of the 1995 Rules, which regulate the service conditions of the petitioner, confine the operation of 1987 Rules to the matters relating to discipline, penalties and appeals only and it does not extend to revision. According to the learned counsel, the Financial Commissioner while deciding the appeal of Subhash Chander was not within his jurisdiction to ask for the record in exercise of revisional jurisdiction and, therefore, reliance placed on Rule 14 of the 1987 Rules by the respondents is wholly misplaced. We have thoughtfully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and are of the view that there is no merit in the same. Rule 14 of the 1987 Rules categorically postulate that the Head of the Department/Government is competent to call and examine record of any case in which a subordinate had passed any order by inflicting penalties specified in Rule 4 of the 1987 Rules. A perusal of Rule 14 of the 1987 Rules shows that the Government could even call for the record of a case in which no order has been passed or penalty inflicted. There are wide powers conferred on the Government to take a decision in accordance with law after further investigation and examination of record, provided, in case the penalty is to be enhanced then an opportunity of hearing is required to be granted to such a Government employee. The aforementioned procedure has been duly complied with. Rule 14 of the 1987 Rules is reproduced hereunder for the facility of reference:- "14. Power of superior authority to revise the proceedings of an inferior authority. (1) The Government or the Head of Department may call for and examine the records of any case in which a subordinate authority passed any order under Rule 9 or has inflicted any of the penalties specified in Rule 4 or in which no order has been passed or penalty inflicted and after making further investigation, if any, may confirm, remit reduce to the any or subject to provisions of Sub-rule (I) of Rule 11, increase the penalty or subject to provisions of Rule 7 and 8 inflict any of the penalties specified in Rule 4. (2) The Government may, at the time of consideration of Memorial, submitted under its general or special instructions published from time to time, by the Government employee on whom a penalty is imposed, review any order passed by the Government under these rules: Provided that the penalty already imposed shall not be enhanced unless an opportunity has been given to the Government employee who has submitted Memorial to show cause why it may not be enhanced.";