IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP (T) 7176 of 2008 Decided on: July 27, 2011 Hans Raj ..Petitioner Versus HRTC and others .. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner was employed as driver with HRTC, impleaded as respondent No.1 herein. On 10.7.1991, he was deployed with Bus No. HP-34-3008, as a driver. When the bus reached near village Nal in Sunder Nagar Sub Division of Mandi District, a land slide was noticed by the side of the road. Because of that the bus was stopped. There were several passengers in the bus. Petitioner put the bus in the first gear and applied the hand brake. Conductor appears to have placed some stone behind one of the rear tyres of the bus. Then the petitioner alighted from the bus. The bus skidded and then started moving Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? É2É backward and ultimately rolled down the road. Seven passengers died and several others sustained injuries. Respondent No.1, the employer of the petitioner, had to pay huge amount of compensation to the dependents of the deceased and the injured, pursuant to the orders passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,, on the petitions of the dependents of the deceased and the injured persons. 2. Departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner. He was charge-sheeted. Regular inquiry was conducted. He was found guilty of negligence for having deboared the bus, without application of Gutka (wooden block), behind one of the back tyres of the bus. Show cause notice of proposed penalty of removal from service was served upon him. Ultimately, he was ordered to be removed from service, vide office order dated 1.7.2003, copy Annexure PJ. He filed an appeal, which has been dismissed vide order dated 13.8.2003, copy Annexure PL. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of removal from service and dismissal of appeal, petitioner filed an Original Application before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal stood abolished in the year 2008 and, so, the matter came to this Court. 4. Petitioner’s plea is that finding of the Inquiry Officer is not based on any evidence. It is also his case that a criminal case was instituted against him and the Criminal É3É Court has acquitted him of the charge and, therefore, he could not have been held guilty by the Inquiry Officer or in any case the finding of the Inquiry Officer is required to be ignored, because of judgment of acquittal. 5. Respondents, on the other hand, have stated that the Inquiry Officer has based his finding on proper appreciation of the evidence, which was led during the course of inquiry and since the act of negligence of the petitioner has resulted in death of a number of persons as also huge monetary loss to respondent No.1, he has rightly been removed from service. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 7. Learned counsel, representing the petitioner, submits that no person, on board the bus at the time of accident, was examined before the Inquiry Officer and that that itself is enough to hold that inquiry report is based on no evidence. Submission has been noticed only to be rejected. Factual position is not denied by the petitioner. Rather, it is admitted. It is not denied by the petitioner that he was driver of the bus nor does he deny that it was stopped by him by the side of the land slide, after he put it in the first gear and the conductor placed one stone behind one of the back tyres. Act of the petitioner alighting from the bus, when it was raining and there was slush and mud É4É on the road, simply relying upon placement of a wet and muddy stone behind one of the rear tyres of the bus, is itself an act of negligence. As a matter of fact, he should not have alighted from the bus, without getting the bus vacated, that is to say, by asking and requiring the passengers to deboard the bus. The stone, which was supposed to be wet and muddy, could have slipped and this fact was supposed to be known better to the petitioner, who was a professional driver, than anybody else. Thus, it is a clear case of civil negligence, if not criminal, on the part of the petitioner. 8. In any case, it is not in dispute that Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has held the petitioner guilty of negligence. I have said so because it is admitted that on account of death of seven passengers and injuries to other passengers, orders were passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for payment of compensation. Such orders must not have been passed, without a finding that the petitioner was guilty of negligence. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submits that the initial order dated 17.1.2003, copy Annexure PE, of removal passed by the Appointing Authority of the petitioner, had been set aside in appeal by the Appellate Authority, vide order, copy Annexure PG and, therefore, there could not have been any order of penalty. É5É 10. No doubt the initial order of punishment had been set aside in appeal, vide order Annexure PG, but the matter had been remanded to punishing authority for passing fresh order, in accordance with the provision of Rule 11 of CCS(CCA) rules, 1965 and it was thereafter that the impugned order of penalty, copy Annexure PJ, was passed. Appeal preferred against this order has been dismissed, vide order, copy Annexure PL. 11. Learned counsel further submits that copy of Inquiry Report had not been supplied to the petitioner, before passing the order of penalty or issuing the notice of proposed penalty. Submission has been noticed only to be rejected. Reason is that no such plea has been taken in the petition. Moreover, in the representations, which the petitioner made after receipt of notice of proposed penalty as also in the grounds of appeal, copies of which are available on the record, it is mentioned repeatedly that a perusal of the report shows that the Inquiry Officer had no evidence before him or that he did not analyze the evidence properly. That itself suggests that copy of the report was available with the petitioner. 12. Another submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that provision of Rule 14(18) of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, had not been complied with, inasmuch as the petitioner had not been questioned with É6É respect to the evidence adduced against him by the Presenting side and this has caused prejudice to the petitioner. This submission is also liable to be rejected, because no such plea has been raised in the petition nor was any such plea raised in the representation, made after service of notice of the proposed penalty or even in the grounds of appeal. 13. As regards the plea that the petitioner has been acquitted by the Criminal Court, copy of judgment of which Court has been placed on record today, shows that the petitioner has been acquitted on account of benefit of doubt. In any case, when the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation to the dependents of the deceased and also to the injured, which could not have been awarded without a finding that cause of accident was negligence on the part of the driver, the plea need not be gone into further. For the foregoing reasons, I see no merit in the present petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. July 27, 2011 (ss) (Surjit Singh), J.