IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2154 of 2010 HARENDRA KUMAR S/O SRI LATE H.P.SINGH R/O MOH KUNWAR SINGH NAGAR , JANTA ROAD, NEW YARPUR,P.O.-G.P.O.,PS.GARDANIBAGH, PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT GOVT.OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE CHAIRMAN, BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION VETERINARY COLLEGE, PATNA-14 3. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION VETERINARY COLLEGE, PATNA-14 4. THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT GOVT.OF BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PATNA 6. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, TRANSPORT OFFICE BISCOMAUN BHAWAN, PATNA ----------- For the petitioner : M/S. P N Shahi, R K Bariar & S K Bariar. For the State : G P 11. ------ 05. 28.04.2010 Petitioner’s contention in the writ application is that the District Transport Officer, Patna has illegally and arbitrarily cancelled the endorsement of heavy motor vehicle from the licence of the present petitioner without there being any substantial ground for the same. The impugned order is Annexure- 1 to the writ application, which was also challenged in appeal before the District Magistrate, Patna, who has mechanically dismissed the appeal and affirmed the finding or the ground laid down by the District Transport Officer, Patna. Stand of the petitioner is that the petitioner had a valid driving licence for light motor vehicle and motorcycle which was issued way back on 17.6.1993. After he obtained experience in driving commercial vehicles or heavy motor vehicles, he got an endorsement made in the said licence. He even 2 tendered the said licence for renewal and last of the renewal was made by the DTO, Patna on 21.10.2005 having validity till 20.10.2008. There was no objection on the said endorsement or the licence at any point of time. The problem for the petitioner began when he responded to the employment notice for appointment on the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector, issued by the State of Bihar. Stand of the petitioner is that he made it to the written test but only with the object of sabotaging final selection and preventing him from being selected some strings were pulled from behind. Petitioner was issued a show cause dated 26.5.2008 under the signature of the District Transport Officer, Patna expressing a doubt on the entry and endorsement of heavy motor vehicle on the licence. The show cause issued to the petitioner is Annexure-7 to the writ application. A detailed reply in Annexure-8 was furnished but it did not satisfy the District Transport Officer and he decided to cancel the endorsement by virtue of Annexure-1 dated 24.10.2008. Reasons given both by the District Transport Officer as well as the appellate authority show that they have not decisively been able to hold that the endorsement of HMV made on the licence of the petitioner was not authentic and not made by the District Transport Officer concerned. Doubts have now been raised because original page of the register stands torn and 3 missing and it is also stated that petitioner has not been able to furnish the original of the learning licence or the challan of deposit of fee etc. in relation to heavy motor vehicle endorsement. This, according to the respondents, makes the whole things suspicious and suspicion was the reason for taking action against the petitioner. The law is well settled that suspicion cannot take the place of poof. Howsoever strong suspicion may be but that by itself is not good enough to take away the right of the petitioner which will have the effect of denying him the opportunity of selection. It is the not the case of the respondents that the official original document is easily available to a common citizen to indulge in any kind of unfairness or manipulation. In fact, it can also be a case where certain vested interests have tried to prevent the petitioner from getting an employment under the State by indulging in vandalism or manipulation. It is also not satisfactorily explained as to why the District Transport Officer had issued show cause to the petitioner and at whose instance. Obviously there are many a things which stand unexplained. Keeping in view the reasons assigned by the District Transport Officer and the appellate authority, the Court is of the considered opinion that the material and the reasons are not sufficient for cancellation of HMV endorsement made on the licence of the petitioner. 4 The writ application is allowed. The District Transport Officer, Patna is hereby directed that on re-submission of the licence of the petitioner he shall ensure that HMV endorsement is put back on the said licence within a period of two weeks from the date of communication / production of copy of this order. The petitioner informs the Court that he has already deposited the requisite fee for renewal of the licence. The re-endorsement may be made on the basis of the renewal since the earlier cancellation has been held to be illegal by the Court. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J )