A. S. Bains, J. - (1.) This second appeal arises out of the following facts:- The appellant was dismissed on 9th July, 1964. The departmental appeal filed by him also met the same fate. He filed suit against his dismissal, in which he alleged that he was working as a Conductor in the Punjab Roadways. Pathankot and that his services were terminated by the General Manager and that the termination order passed by the General Manager was illegal, unwarranted, void and may be set aside. His claim was resisted by the Punjab Roadways The parties contested of the following issues:- 1. Whether the termination of the services of the plaintiff by the defendant is contrary to law and rales applicable and, if so, what is its effect ? OPP. 2. Relief. The trial court decided the only issue against the plaintiff-appellant and dismissed the suit. His appeal was also dismissed by the first appellate Court on 19th March, 1968.
(2.) Mr. Nanda learned counsel for the appellant contended that full opportunity as required under the law was not afforded to the appellant for defending his case and the impugned order is cryptic and has given no reasons. He particularly referred to Kartar Singh's statement, on which the finding of the Enquiry Officer was based. His precise contention is that Kartar Singh was never examined in the presence of the appellant nor any copy of his statement was supplied to the appellant. The said Kartar Singh appeared as plaintiff's witness and he stated that he was never examined by anybody either by the Enquiry Officer or by any other authority. This Kartar Singh was the Booking Clerk at the tine the services of the appellant were terminated. Earlier he was also a Conductor The Enquiry Officer has referred to the statement of Kartar Singh as under:- "The said waybill was shown to Shri Kartar Singh Conductor 1 No. 120 who had prepared the way bill of Shri Darsban Singh for 30-4-64 Shri Kartar Singh stated that the way bill for 30-4-64 was not prepared by him." But the learned Appellate Court has brushed aside this objection on the ground that the report of the Enquiry Officer was based mainly on the statement of Tarlok Singh, Inspector. The statement of Tarlok Singh does in any way show that the over-writing on the way bill was done by Darshan Singh, appellant.
(3.) I have gone through the evidence, the inquiry report, the show , cause notice and the termination order passed by the competent authority. The termination order passed by the competent authority i. e. the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Pathankot, on 9th July 1965 is in the following terms:- "As a result of departmental enquiry against Shri Darshan Singh Conductor No. 40 under suspension, he has been found guilty for defrauding the Government and charges of embezzlement of Government revenue have been fully proved against him. His services are hereby terminated w.e.f. 9-7-64 (F. N.) He is required to deposit all the articles issued to him from time to time from the office within 7 days from the date of issue of the orders." From the reading of this order it is evident that the competent authority does not seem to have applied its mind while passing the termination order. He has also not referred to the findings of the Enquiry Officer and has only said that since the Enquiry Officer has found him guilty for defrauding the Government and charges of embezzlement of Government revenue have been fatly proved against him, his services are hereby terminated. The inquiry report is also not very clear as to the amount of embezzlement or particulars of fraud. The concluding lines of that Enquiry Officer's report show that the appellant is guilty of very clever fraud and he deserves no sympathy. In these circumstances, I hold that the termination order suffers from infirmity in view of the law laid down by this Court in a case reported as Rajinder Pal Abrol Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1971 P & R 290, wherein it was held as under:- "The order of removal of the petitioner passed by the State Government under section 10(1)(e)(iv) Electricity (Supply) Act merely stated that after going through the charges and the explanation furnished by the petitioner and from the material on the file the Minister concerned was of the definite opinion that the petitioner was unfit to continue as a Member of the Board. Held, that the whole procedure adopted and the approach made by the Minister was contrary to rules of natural justice. There was compliance only with the letter of the statute and not in its spirit in obtaining merely the explanation of the petitioner. The order was a non-speaking one and smacked of pre-determination and arbitrariness, Art. 14 of the Constitution required that it should be quashed." This case related to the removal of the Member of the Punjab State Electricity Board and a opportunity was given to the Member for his removal and ultimately he was removed by the order of the Minister in-charge of the Department and in that situation, it was held that since in the final order of removal no reasons were given, the order was illegal and invalid. The same case was taken to the Supreme Court by the State, which is reported as The State of Punjab and another Vs. Rajinder Pal Abrol and another, 1972 SLR (SC) 85, wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court also approved the decision of this Court and it was observed as under:- "This order cannot be said to be a speaking order. It is arbitrary to the core. Such an order cannot be upheld. Hence it is not necessary to get into the other contentions advanced on behalf of Shri Abrol." The following order was passed by the Minister in charge in Rajinder Pal Abrol's case:- "I have gone through the charges and the explanation furnished by Shri R. P. Abrol. From the material on the file, I am definitely of the opinion that he is not a fit person to be retained as part time member of the Electricity Board. I, therefore, order that Shri Abrol may be removed from membership under sub-clause (iv) of clause (e) of sub-section (I) of Sec. 10 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948. C. M. may kindly see. After C. M. has seen, immediate orders be issued." Sd/- Sohan Singh Basi, I.P.M. 17-1-1969 " That order was held by this Court and the Supreme Court to be arbitrary and a non-speaking order. The present order under attack is even more cryptic.;