Civil Writ Petition No. 8449 of 1990 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.8449 of 1990 Date of decision: 10.11.2010 Jai Singh son of Kishan Chand, r/o village Dadupur Tehsil and District Karnal, Ex-Driver No.319 Haryana Roadways Karnal. (since deceased) Through legal representative: Smt. Bharma Ranole @ Bharbati Rani wd/o late Shri Jai Singh s/o Kishan Chand r/o village Dhadupur, Tehsil and District Karnal. ..... Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Haryana through its Secretary Transport Haryana Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh. 2. State Transport Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh, 3. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Karnal ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL Present:- Mr.K.S. Sidhu, Senior Advocate with Mr. G.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Satbir Singh Goripuria, DAG, Haryana, for the respondents-State. M. Jeyapaul, J(Oral). The writ petition was filed by late Jai Singh, who was the driver of the Haryana Roadways under the 3rd Civil Writ Petition No. 8449 of 1990 -2- respondent. The 3rd respondent having found that the deceased- petitioner disobeyed the office orders to take the bus through bypass road surrounding Shamli city, terminated him from service. The deceased-petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Transport Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh, respondent no.2, who chose to dismiss the same. Challenging the impugned orders, passed by the 2nd respondent and 3rd respondent, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. Jai Singh, who originally filed the present writ petition, unfortunately passed away, as a result of which, the legal representative has now come on record to pursue the instant writ petition. 3. Jai Singh, deceased-petitioner faced the following two charges before the Inquiry Officer appointed by the 3rd respondent; (i)that on 02.08.1986 while on duty on bus No.3659 on Karnal Shamli Route took the same inside the city instead of via bypass road violating the office orders. The bus also met with an accident near Karnal-Kalindri Gate, in which one cyclist was killed. Jai Singh, petitioner left the bus on the site of the accident and ran away. (ii) that Jai Singh, petitioner remained absent from duty w.e.f. 03.08.1986 to 06.08.1986, without furnishing any leave application and thereby showed indiscipline of the highest order. Civil Writ Petition No. 8449 of 1990 -3- 4. The Enquiry Officer returned a finding that the first charge that Jai Singh violated the office orders by taking the bus through the city instead of via bypass route was established. Therefore he was found guilty of the said charge. As regards the second charge that he remained absent from duty for four days from 3.8.1986 to 6.8.1986, the Enquiry Officer found that the said charge was not established by the department. The 3rd respondent having given final notice and also offering personal hearing to Jai Singh, petitioner, passed a capital punishment of termination from service for the first charge which stood established against him. 5. The appeal preferred by the petitioner aggrieved by the order of termination passed by the 3rd respondent before the 2nd respondent was confirmed and the same was dismissed. 6. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. K.S. Sidhu, appearing for the petitioner would submit that there was no material to indicate that the circular issued by the office was personally communicated to the petitioner. There was no charge for rash and negligent driving. Nor was there any charge that Jai Singh, petitioner drove the vehicle in a drunken state. Referring to the reply filed by the respondents to the present writ petition, the Senior Counsel Mr. K.S. Sidhu, would submit Civil Writ Petition No. 8449 of 1990 -4- the contention that the petitioner was not personally informed of the office circular, was not specifically denied by the respondents. Finally he would submit that the punishment awarded for the alleged slight lapse on the part of the petitioner, is quite disproportionate to the charge. 7. In contrast, the learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the respondents-State referring to the explanation given by the petitioner to the charges levelled against him and also the statement given by the conductor, would submit that there is an implied admission by the petitioner that he was very much aware of the office orders circulated by the office. It is his further submission that the statement of witnesses examined before the Inquiry Officer would go to show that the petitioner was drunk when he took a wrong route, violating the instructions issued by the office and causing the accident wherein a cyclist was killed. Therefore it is his submission that the punishment awarded to the petitioner was proportionate to the gravity of the charge proved against him. 8. The first charge against the petitioner was that he violated the office orders by taking bus No.3659 inside Karnal city instead of via bypass. He also caused an accident near Karnal-Kalindri Gate, in which one cyclist was killed. Civil Writ Petition No. 8449 of 1990 -5- 9. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, no rash and negligent driving was attributed to the petitioner in the charge. Nor was any drunken driving attributed to the petitioner-driver. To top it all, it is found that no evidence was produced before the Inquiry Officer that the petitioner drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and thereby caused the accident. The petitioner has established before the Court that the trial Court relieved him of the charge that he drove the vehicle in question in a rash and negligent manner. Of course as pointed out by the learned Deputy Advocate General there is a different parameter to appreciate the evidence before the criminal Court. In other words to establish a case of the prosecution, proof beyond reasonable doubt is required before the criminal Court. But it is to be noted that the criminal Court after having thoroughly analysed the materials on record, has recorded its findings that it was only the cyclist, who drove his cycle in a negligent manner invited the accident. Such an observation made by the criminal Court cannot be simply ignored by the Court. 10. Coming to the plea that the petitioner was not communicated with the circular issued by the 3rd respondent, it is found that the petitioner took a stand in the explanation submitted by him to the charges that he had to take the bus Civil Writ Petition No. 8449 of 1990 -6- through the city of Karnal only on account of the insistence of some passengers in the bus. As rightly pointed out by the learned Deputy Advocate General, the aforesaid explanation would go to establish that the petitioner took the bus in question through the city due to the insistence of some passengers. Further the conductor, who was none other than the colleague of the petitioner had given a statement before the Enquiry Officer that the petitioner under the influence of liquor took the bus through the city. Further the record produced by the respondents would go to show that the office circular for strict compliance of the driver had been pasted on the notice board. Therefore, it is found that the authorities have rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner herein violated the office instructions that the bus should be taken through bypass road and not through the city. 11. When there is no charge of rash and negligent driving and the only charge is that he violated the office orders, in the considered opinion of this Court, the 3rd respondent has disproportionately awarded punishment of terminating the petitioner from service. 12. Unfortunately, the petitioner, who waged a battle against the respondents has passed away during the pendency of the writ petition. Therefore, his legal heir is now continuing the Civil Writ Petition No. 8449 of 1990 -7- battle left behind by the petitioner. 13. In view of the facts and circumstances, I set aside the punishment portion of the impugned order. Consequently a direction is issued to the 3rd respondent to award an appropriate punishment proportionate to the nature of first charge which stood established as against Jai Singh, petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 14. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. There is no order as to costs. (M. Jeyapaul) Judge 10.11.2010 dinesh Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No.