IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.602 of 2003 Decided on: April 29, 2008. H.R.T.C. …..Petitioner. VERSUS Kuldeep Singh …..Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner: Mr H.S.Rawat, Advocate. For the Respondent: None. Deepak Gupta, Judge (Oral). This petition is directed against the order of learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal dated 24.4.2003 passed in OA No.1194 of 1998 whereby the Tribunal has quashed the order dated 31.12.1997 whereby the petitioner has been removed from service. The allegation against the petitioner is that he did not report for duty after having availed leave. It would be apposite to refer the relevant portion of the order passed against the workman: “Whereas during his period of 25 years service said Shri Kuldeep Singh, driver, HRTC, Nahan Unit was penalized for various omissions and commissions, the detail of which is enclosed. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes …2… Whereas said Shri Kuldeep Singh, driver was served with a show cause notice vide memorandum No.TD-1-PF/97-22705, dated 6.10.1997. But he has not responded to the same despite of reasonable opportunity for furnishing reply. In view of above, the undersigned has arrived at an honest opinion that Shri Kuldeep Singh, driver, HRTC, Nahan Unit is not amendable and Corporation would not benefited by longer by the services of Shri Kuldeep Singh, driver as it has lost confidence in him. Himachal Road Transport Corporation is an Industry and the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 are applicable to it. In compliance to Rule- 25(f) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, I hereby order to send a draft of Rs.69138/- through Regional Manager, HRTC, Nahan Unit as the compensation for 15 days pay or each completed, years and one months salary in lieu of notice Rs.6012 to less this amount is being sent at his permanent home address. I order to remove his services in the public interest and in the interest of justice with immediate effect.” 2. A perusal of the above order itself shows that the employer / respondent (Corporation) took into consideration various omissions and commissions for which the employee had already been penalized. A show cause was issued to the petitioner on 6.10.1997 but he did not reply the same. In case the employee had not replied to the show cause notice the employer was free to hold further inquiry and if necessary proceed ex-parte against the employee. However, …3… the requirement of holding inquiry could not have been dispensed with. The order in question is purported to be passed under the Industrial Disputes Act. Admittedly, the CCS (CCA) Rules are applicable in the H.R.T.C. to all employees including drivers. Therefore, an inquiry under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules was required to be conducted and memo was issued to the petitioner under these rules only, asking him to show cause. Once he was asked to show cause under the said rules, further action should have been taken under the said rules. 3. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the CCS (CCA) Rules were not applicable and the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act could be invoked in the present case, we are of the considered opinion that the order which has been quoted hereinabove is illegal since it is punitive in nature. It holds that the petitioner is not fit to be retained in service. The order terminating the services of the petitioner could not have been passed by way of retrenchment and could have been issued only after holding an inquiry. Therefore, from whatever angle we approach the case it is obvious that the order passed by the respondent on 31.12.1997 without holding any inquiry is totally illegal and has rightly been quashed by the learned Tribunal which has allowed the Original Application of the petitioner with all consequential benefits. 4. Since no inquiry was conducted, we find no error in the order passed by the learned Tribunal and the writ petition is rejected. Interim stay shall stand vacated. No costs. ( Deepak Gupta ),J. April 29, 2008. ( Kuldip Singh ),J. (soni)