IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 10066 of 2008. Decided on : 06.05.2011. _____________________________________________________ Basu Dev. …Petitioner. -Versus- Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : None. For the respondents. : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Petitioner was appointed as a Driver in the respondent-Corporation in the month of April, 1998. He was driving Bus No. 38-7621 on 26.08.2001, when a Television of one of the passengers, placed on the roof of the bus without his consent, was damaged. Learned District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Kangra at Dharamshala allowed the complaint filed by the owner on 21.04.2003, whereby the petitioner and respondent-Corporation were found jointly and severally liable to make payment of `13400/- with interest @9% per annum from 26.08.2001. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with a notice under Rule 16 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to a “the Rules” for convenience sake). He filed reply to the same vide Annexure A-6, dated 22.07.2003. Petitioner was directed to pay a sum of `8809/- vide office order dated 30th July, 2003. The present petition has been filed against Annexure A-7, dated 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No. - 2 - 30th July, 2003. Petitioner has approached the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, assailing Annexure A-7 by way of O.A.(D) No. 446 of 2003. Learned Tribunal on 25th September, 2003 has stayed the operation of order dated 30th July, 2003 (Annexure A-7) till further orders. 2. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the issuance of Annexure A-7, dated 30th July, 2003. According to him, since the petitioner has caused damage to the Television while driving the bus negligently, he is liable to pay a sum of `8809/-. 3. It is evident from the facts enumerated hereinabove that the petitioner was driving bus on 26.08.2001. A Television which was placed on the roof of the bus got damaged. The petitioner has been served with a charge-sheet on 09.07.2003, to which he filed reply on 22.07.2003. The penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner on 30th July, 2003 without taking into consideration the instructions issued under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. It was necessary to the disciplinary authority after the receipt of the reply/representation on the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour communicated to the delinquent, to apply its mind to all the facts and circumstances and the reasons urged in the representation for holding a detailed inquiry and from an opinion whether an inquiry is necessary or not. In the instant case, there is no such application of mind by the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority without taking into consideration the representation made by the petitioner and without coming to the conclusion whether a detailed inquiry was called for or not, has - 3 - imposed the penalty upon the petitioner vide Annexure A-7. Consequently, Annexure A-7 is liable to be quashed and set aside. In fact, the respondents have taken a plea before the learned District Consumer Redressal Forum, Kangra at Dharamshala that the accident has not been caused due to the negligence of the Driver. 4. Accordingly, in view of the observations/discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-7, dated 30.07.2003 is quashed and set aside. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge May 06, 2011. (bhupender) - 4 - `