IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 16673 of 1990 Date of Decision : August 20, 2010. Ishwar Singh ...... Petitioner Versus General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Gurgaon, and others ...... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Swarn Tiwana, Advocate, for Mr. R.S. Rai, Senior Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D.S. Nalwa, Addl. A.G. Haryana, for respondents. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). The prayer in the present writ petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Order dated 09.08.1989 (Annexure-P- 5), vide which the services of the petitioner, who was working as a Conductor, have been terminated after holding a regular departmental inquiry in which he was held guilty of the charges framed against him and Order dated 23.11.1990 (Annexure-P-7), vide which the department Appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of termination, was also rejected. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was chargesheeted for non issuance of the ticket to a passenger amounting to Rs. 8.50 and secondly, he and the driver had taken liquor during his duty hours alongwith that passenger and, thus, he had not issued ticket to him. The allegations made against the petitioner are false and without any basis. However, on a departmental inquiry, held against him, he was found guilty without any evidence being on record. He contends that in case the petitioner was found to be in a drunken condition on duty, his medical examination should have been got conducted and there being no evidence in this regard C.W.P. No. 16673 of 1990 -2- against the petitioner, the finding returned by the Enquiry Officer cannot be sustained. As a matter of fact, the passenger was drunk and was creating nuisance in the bus. He was fighting with other co-passengers as well as driver and conductor of the bus. In those circumstances, the petitioner could not throw him out of the bus, when the bus was checked by the checking staff under the supervision of the General Manager. He on this basis contends that finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer and all subsequent proceedings relying on that, cannot be sustained and the impugned Orders deserve to be quashed. On the other hand, counsel for respondents submits that as far as holding of a departmental inquiry is concerned, no procedural irregularity or illegality has been pointed out by the petitioner. The finding, which has been recorded by the Enquiry Officer, is based on the statements given by two checking staff Inspectors. As the petitioner was on duty and his checking was done, while the bus was on the move, there was no possibility of his medical examination at that stage. Further, the petitioner had himself admitted before the General Manager with regard to the fact that he was in drunken condition and had taken liquor with the passenger as also the factum that the ticket was not issued to the passenger. Thus, the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer is in accordance with law and cannot be faulted with. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The charges were levelled against the petitioner through a chargesheet, which was served upon him, vide letter No. 9746/TA dated 25.05.1989, which reads as follow :- “You, Ishwar Singh Conductor No. 240 were on duty as Conductor on Vehicle No. 931 on Rewari-Gurgaon route. The vehicle was inspected by S/Shri Khushi Ram Gulati and Mahabir C.W.P. No. 16673 of 1990 -3- Singh under the supervision of the General Manager at Gurgaon- Sohna chowk, and it was found that one passenger was travelling without ticket from Rewari to Gurgaon and he had taken liquor, and you too also had taken liquor with him. The passengers complained that you all three took liquor together, therefore, did not give ticket to this passenger. You admitted at the spot that you took liquor together. This way you caused loss to the Haryana Government of Rs. 8.50, and violated the discipline and brought bad name to the department. Therefore, you caused loss to the Government of Rs. 8.50, violated the discipline and you are charged for bringing bad name to the department.” The factum of non issuance of a ticket to the passenger is not in dispute, although, an explanation for non issuance of ticket was submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner was in a drunken condition and had taken liquor, is proved from the fact that two checking staff Inspectors, namely, Shri Khushi Ram Gulati/Inspector-Informant and Shri Mahabir Singh, Inspector, have categorically stated in the inquiry proceedings that the petitioner had consumed liquor. They further proved on the record that the petitioner, who was the Conductor of the bus at the relevant time, had not issued ticket to the petitioner. It has further come on the record that the petitioner in consideration of issuance of ticket, had consumed liquor with the passenger. That is the evidence, which has been led by the Management against the petitioner. Strict proof of evidence is not required in the departmental proceedings merely because medical examination of the petitioner had not been got conducted, does not mean that the petitioner had not consumed the liquor, when two departmental officials consistently made such a statement. It would also not be out of way to mention here that it was stated in their statements as also in the chargesheet that the petitioner had admitted the factum of consumption of liquor before the General Manager. The finding C.W.P. No. 16673 of 1990 -4- recorded by the Enquiry Officer, is based on evidence and, thus, cannot be said to be perverse or without any basis. The petitioner was given an opportunity to lead his evidence in defence, but he gave in writing that he does not want to produce any witness in his support. Thus, the finding of the Enquiry Officer and reliance thereof by the Punishing Authority, leading to the termination of services of the petitioner, is fully justified and in accordance with law, which does not call for any interference by this Court. Counsel for the petitioner has not raised any challenge to the departmental proceedings held by the enquiry officer nor has any illegality or irregularity brought to the notice of the Court during the arguments. Thus, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE August 20, 2010. sjks.