IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 8915/2008 Reserved on: 15.6.2010 Decided on:21.6. 2010 _____________________________________________ Nain Sukh. …Petitioner. Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965 on 8.12.1998. He filed reply to the charge-sheet. Inquiry Officer was appointed. He submitted the report to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority issued memorandum to the petitioner on 11.7.2000. Petitioner filed reply to the same. The Disciplinary Authority imposed penalty of stoppage of two 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 increments with cumulative effect upon the petitioner vide order dated 2.5.2000. Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority on 26.12.2000. The same was decided by him on 31.1.2001. Petitioner preferred another appeal dated nil and he was conveyed vide memorandum dated 27.2.2002 that earlier appeal preferred by him was duly considered and already rejected by the Divisional Manager. Mr. Ajay Sharma has strenuously argued that his client has been penalized twice for the same offence. He then contended that a sum of Rs. 36/- was recovered from the petitioner and un-punched tickets were recovered from the bag of his client. He then contended that Inquiry Officer has wrongly discarded the statement of Sh. Satish Kumar. Mr. Adarsh Sharma has vehemently argued that inquiry has been conducted against the petitioner in accordance with law. He further contended that the statement of Sh. Satish Kumar was duly considered by the Inquiry Officer in his report. He finally contended that petitioner was not penalized twice and he has been penalized only on the basis of disciplinary proceedings, which were initiated against him on 8.12.1998. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner vide charge-sheet dated 8.12.1998. Case was entrusted to the Inquiry Officer. Sh. Krishan Chand, Inspector has appeared on behalf of the department as PW-1. He has deposed that on 3 23.11.1998, he alongwith Chuni Lal, Inspector inspected bus No. HP-10-0358, which was plying between Rohru and Rekong Peo. It was driven by Malkiyat Singh, Driver and Nain Sukh (petitioner) was the Conductor. The bus was inspected near Summer Kot at 12.50 P.M. There were 58 ½ passengers and 600 Kgs of weight. Four passengers were found without tickets travelling between Rohru to Summer Kot. The Conductor had already received a sum of Rs. 36/- from them. They took into possession un-punched tickets worth Rs. 36/- and the same were annexed with the report. On the question put by the Presenting Officer, he deposed that the distance between Rohru and Summer Kot was 18 KMs. He also deposed that four passengers were travelling between Rohru and Summer Kot and the Conductor had already received Rs. 36/- from them. Inquiry Officer has also put a question to PW-1 whether the passengers had told him that one of the passengers has alighted at the last stoppage. Statement of Sh. Satish Kumar was also recorded by the Inquiry Officer as defence witness. He deposed that in the month of November, 1998, four passengers were travelling from Rohru Hospital to Summer Kot. Petitioner was deputed as Conductor in this bus. The names of other passengers were Savir Dass, Banvir Singh and Bhag singh. The tickets were already issued to them. However, one person alighted before 200 meters at the last stoppage. It is thus evident that Department has produced PW-1 and the petitioner as produced DW-1 Satish Kumar. The Inquiry Officer, after correctly appreciating the statements of PW-1 and DW-2, had come to a conclusion that the 4 charge levelled against the petitioner stood proved. Statement of PW-1 inspires confidence. He had inspected the bus on 23.11.1998 with Sh. Chuni Lal, Inspector. He has categorically stated that four passengers were found travelling without tickets though a sum of Rs. 36/- was already received by the Conductor. The statement of DW-1 Satish Kumar does not inspire any confidence. It is not believable that co-passenger will alight earlier when he was travelling in a group that too without handing over the tickets to the co-passengers, who were travelling with him. The Conductor could easily get the tickets recovered from the passenger, who had alighted only 200 meters back before the bus was inspected. The Disciplinary Authority on the basis of inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer has imposed the penalty of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect. He has taken into consideration the reply furnished by the petitioner to the memorandum dated 11.7.2000. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the office order dated 15.9.2000 was barred by limited. The prescribed period for filing the appeal against the imposition of penalty is 45 days. In the instant case, the appeal has been preferred on 26.12.2000 and was decided on 31.1.2001. There is no merit in the contention of Mr. Ajay Sharma that since Rs. 36/- have been recovered from the petitioner and un- punched tickets worth Rs. 36/- were also taken from the bag of the petitioner, which will amount to penalizing the petitioner twice for the same misconduct. It was only administrative compliance with 5 the procedure since those tickets were required to be annexed with the report of the Inspectors. Only for the reason that a sum of Rs. 36 has been recovered from the petitioner, cannot be treated as penalty provided for under the Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965. The penalties imposed are only those which find mention in Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965. The departmental proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner for pocketing a sum of Rs. 36/- without issuing tickets to the passengers. The Inquiry Officer has concluded the inquiry in accordance with law. Petitioner has failed to substantiate that there was any illegality or shortcomings in the inquiry report. The Inquiry Officer has correctly appreciated the statements of PW-1 and DW-1. The penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner after holding regular inquiry and after associating the petitioner. Accordingly, it cannot be held that the petitioner has been penalized twice for the same offence, as argued by Mr. Ajay Sharma. It is settled law by now that the Evidence Act does not apply to the departmental proceedings though principles of natural justice are to be complied with. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chairman cum Managing Director, Coal India Limited and another versus Mukul Kumar Choudari and others, (2009) 15 SCC 620 have held that it is not open to the High Court to examine findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer as a Court of Appeal and reach its own conclusions. Their Lordships have further held that power of judicial review is not directed 6 against the decision but is confined to decision making process. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held as under: “It has been time and again said that it is not open to the High Court to examine the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer as a Court of Appeal and reach its own conclusions and that power of judicial review is not directed against the decision but is confined to the decision making process. In a case such as the present one where the delinquent admitted the charges, no scope is left to differ with the conclusions arrived at by the Inquiry Officer about the proof of charges. In the absence of any procedural illegality or irregularity in conduct of the departmental enquiry, it has to be held that the charges against the delinquent stood proved and warranted no interference.” In the instant case neither there is any procedural illegality nor any irregularity while conducting departmental inquiry. The charge has been proved against the petitioner in accordance with law. No other point was urged. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 21.6. 2010 *awasthi*