HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 16627 of 2008 Date of Decision: February 24, 2011 Babu Ram ……. Petitioner Versus H.R.T.C. & Ors. ….. Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the petitioner : Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(a) Quash the impugned order A-2, A-4, A-5, A-6 & A-7 issued arbitrarily, malafide and illegally by the respondents; (b) Direct the respondents to pay all the arrears for the period of suspension and full salary for the period the applicant was kept out of service due to illegal order of compulsory retirement with interest @18%.” 2. It is not in dispute that petitioner was employed as a Conductor with the respondent-Corporation. Certain disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. This fact is also not in dispute. Vide memorandum dated 12.10.1999 (Annexure A-1), petitioner was asked to file his response to the charges levelled against him. It is the allegation of the petitioner that during the course of inquiry, he was 2 coerced to admit his guilt and confess to the charges in writing. This fact is seriously disputed by the respondents. My attention has been invited to the observations made by the Managing Director while passing order dated 9.4.2002 (Annexure A-5) to this effect. I shall deal with the same hereinafter later. 3. The Disciplinary Authority, on the basis of confession made by the petitioner imposed the penalty of stoppage of annual increment of pay with cumulative effect. This is evident from office order dated 13.6.2000 (Annexure A-2). The charge against the petitioner of having misappropriated public money was found to have been proved on the basis of his admission. The Revisional Authority was not satisfied with the disciplinary action taken by the authority. Consequently, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, asking him to respond to imposition of higher penalty (major penalty). Undisputedly, petitioner responded to the same by taking the plea that he had not committed any misconduct inasmuch as the passengers in question had actually misplaced the tickets worth Rs.300/- and that there was no attempt on his part to misappropriate the said amount. Petitioner also took the plea that Inquiry Officer had compelled him to admit his guilt and confess to the charges levelled against him. By taking into account the entire attending circumstances and the material placed on record, the Revisional Authority in terms of order dated 4.11.2000 (Annexure A-4) imposed penalty of compulsory retirement from service. Aggrieved of the same, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, who reduced the penalty of compulsory retirement and imposed the penalty of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect in terms of order dated 9.4.2002 3 (Annexure A-5). A corrigendum to this order was also issued on 16.5.2002, whereby the period intervening from the date of compulsory retirement to the date of rejoining was ordered to be treated as dies non. However, it was clarified that this period, for the purpose of pension and gratuity would not amount to break in service. Thus, it is the grievance of the petitioner that for the said period he ought to have been accorded monetary benefits including wages. 4. In support of his contentions, Mr. P.P. Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has referred to and relied upon the following decisions, copies of which are taken on record: 1. Sambhunath Das vs. Airports Authority of India & ors. 2004(3) S.C.T. 78; and 2. Mohd. Latif alias Abdul Latif vs Commandant, J&K Armed Police, 1998(2) S.C.T. 410 5. While passing order dated 9.4.2002, the Managing Director has observed as under:- “AND WHEREAS the undersigned after going through all the relevant record of the case and hearing him in person is of the considered opinion that the said Sh. Babu Ram, Ex- Conductor may have given assurance of exonerating of the charges levelled against him, which made him to confess the charges during enquiry and such assurance cannot be ruled out.” 6. Except for the aforesaid observations, there is nothing on record to prove/establish the fact that petitioner was coerced by the Inquiry Officer to confess to his guilt. Respondents have categorically denied this fact before this Court, to which there is no rebuttal. That 4 apart, even the observations made in the order dated 9.4.2002 cannot be said to have conclusively determined the factum of admission of coercion on the part of the employees of the respondent-Corporation. Disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner in October, 1999. He admitted his guilt during the course of inquiry proceedings. Had he not been guilty of the charged offence or had he been innocent there was no basis or reason for him to have admitted the guilt. Obviously, petitioner had wanted the respondent authority to take a lenient view and therefore admitted to his guilt. He thwarted the process of completion and conclusion of inquiry by admitting to his guilt. In my considered view, the authority took a lenient view. He was charged of having caused loss to the State exchequer. Having admitted his guilt he subsequently took a false and dishonest plea to the effect that the passengers in question had misplaced the tickets. Before passing of the order dated 13.6.2000 he did not raise the issue of coercion before any one. In this background, the plea which is now sought taken to be is factually incorrect and palpably false. 7. The respondent authority, in my considered view, has already taken a lenient view by imposing lesser penalty of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect and treating the period of absence as dies non. Noticeably, the said period has been allowed to be taken into account for the purpose of his pension and gratuity. Action has been taken in accordance with the relevant rules CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, to the extent applicable to the petitioner. 8. The decision in Mohd. Latif supra does not deal with the issue at all. In Sambhunath Das supra the Court was dealing with the 5 Regulation 31 of the Leave Regulations, 1983 which are not in issue in this case. Consequently, the decisions are inapplicable to the instant case. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any reason to interfere in the action taken by the respondents. Present appeal, being devoid of any merit, is consequently dismissed. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. February 24, 2011 (rana)