IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No. 81 of 2009 Judgment reserved on : 18.8.2010 Date of decision: 31.8.2010 Ram Lal Sharma ….Appellant Versus H.R.T.C. and Ors. ….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. For the Appellant : Mr. Romesh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25.5.2009 passed in CWP (T) No. 2402 of 2008. 2. The facts in brief are that appellant had filed writ petition for quashing office order dated 4.1.1993 dispensing with the services of appellant with immediate effect and office order dated 28.5.1993 enforcing office order dated 4.1.1993 with immediate effect after the rejection of representation of appellant. 3. The further case of the appellant is that appellant was appointed as Conductor in respondent No.1-Corporation and he joined as such on 8.10.1990. The appellant vide office order dated 6.11.1990 was kept on probation for a period of two years. The appellant was not keeping good health and he remained under treatment. 4. On 25.6.1992 despite his ill health he was forced to go with Bus No. HIS 2483 from Shimla to Throach. On the way the bus was checked, a report was made that some passengers were found travelling without tickets. On 3.8.1992 the respondent No.2 extended the probation of appellant for further period of one year w.e.f. 3.8.1992. On 3.8.1992 respondent issued memo of alleged misconduct to appellant for having involved in ticketless travelling case dated 25.6.1992. The appellant submitted reply to memo on 22.8.1992. 5. The appellant filed Original Application No. 72 of 1993 before the erstwhile Tribunal against the proposed action of respondents to terminate his services. The Tribunal on 13.1.1993 ordered that the Original Application of the appellant be treated as representation to the Corporation. But on 4.1.1993 the respondent No.2 terminated the services of the appellant with immediate effect. The order dated 4.1.1993 was subsequently stayed by respondent No.1 till further orders. The respondent No.2 vide office order dated 28.5.1993 rejected the representation of the appellant, office order dated 4.1.1993 dispensing with the services of the appellant was ordered to be given immediate effect. The appellant filed writ petition in this court against the order dated 28.5.1993 in which the order of termination was stayed but Supreme Court in SLP filed by the Corporation vacated the stay. This Court decided the writ petition on the ground of jurisdiction. 6. The appellant has assailed orders dated 4.1.1993 and 28.5.1993 before the Tribunal on the ground that orders are unjust, illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. The appellant is a patient of Chronic Neurotic Depressive illness. On 25.6.1992 the petitioner was lying on the conductor’s seat when the inspectorate staff checked the bus. In the facts and circumstances of the case inquiry was necessary to ascertain the facts before terminating the services of the appellant. The punishment imposed is excessive, the representation was rejected by the Corporation without giving any hearing to the appellant. 7. The petition was contested by the respondents by filing reply in which it has been stated that appellant was not entitled to any opportunity or show cause notice yet it was given to him before dispensing with his services, the appellant was on probation. The appellant was appointed as Conductor on 8.10. 1990 and was placed under probation for two years which was subsequently extended for another one year w.e.f. 8.10.1992. The appellant was on probation on the date of removal from service i.e. 4.1.1993. The respondents disputed the illness of the appellant. They have taken the plea that authenticity of medical certificate furnished by the appellant is quite doubtful and seems to have been managed after the incident dated 25.6.1992. The respondents supported the orders dated 4.1.1993 and 28.5.1993. The learned single Judge dismissed the petition on 25.5.2009. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The appellant was appointed as Conductor on 8.10.1990 which is clear from office order dated 6.11.1990. The Clause (x) of office order dated 6.11.1990 stipulates the probation period of two years to start with in case the work and conduct of the appellant during the period of probation in the opinion of authority found not satisfactory, his services shall be liable to be dispensed with without any notice. The probation period of appellant was extended for further period of one year from 8.10.1992 vide office order dated 3.8.1992. The appellant was found having not issued tickets to 10 passengers on checking on 25.6.1992. The appellant was issued memo dated 3.8.1992 against the proposed action. The petitioner submitted the representation. The respondent No.2 after consideration of relevant record replied to show cause notice, vide office order dated 4.1.1993 dispensed with the services of the appellant with immediate effect. 9. The representation of the appellant in pursuance of order dated 13.1.1993 of the erstwhile Tribunal in OA No. 72 of 1993 was rejected vide office order dated 28.5.1993 and order dated 4.1.1993 was ordered to be enforced with immediate effect. On 4.1.1993 the petitioner was on probation. The order dated 4.1.1993 is in consonance with Clause (x) of office order dated 6.11.1990 appointing the appellant on probation. The work and conduct of the appellant during the probation period was not found satisfactory by the competent authority. The misconduct referred to in the show cause notice issued to the appellant was motive and not the foundation for dispensing with the services of the appellant during the probation period. The order dated 4.1.1993 is not stigmatic nor it has been issued by way of punishment. This order has been passed on the basis of over all working of the appellant during the probation period. The learned Single Judge has considered the case of the appellants correctly and we are in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. There is no merit in the appeal which is dismissed. . (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice August 31 , 2010 (Justice Kuldip Singh), (GR) Judge