IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 12761 of 2008. Reserved on: 05.05.2011. Decided on: 13.05.2011. _________________________________________________ Kuldeep Singh. … Petitioner. Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner : Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Petitioner was recruited as driver in the respondent-Corporation on 21st March, 1998. While he was driving the bus from Rampur Bushahr to Jammu, it met with an accident on 13th July, 2004. The fatal accident resulted in death of 11 passengers. Disciplinary proceedings were 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - initiated against him under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 for causing accident and putting the Corporation in financial loss due to death of 11 passengers and for negligent in performance of duties vide charge sheet dated 5th August, 2004. Petitioner filed detailed reply to the same on 13th September, 2004. Inquiry Officer furnished his report to the disciplinary authority on 11th April, 2005. Thereafter memorandum was issued to the petitioner on 25th April, 2005. He filed reply to the same on 12th May, 2005. The disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of removal from service upon the petitioner vide order dated 1st July, 2005. Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation. Same was dismissed by him on 9th September, 2005. 2. Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the inquiry report is perverse. According to him, the Inquiry Officer has misread the evidence led by the petitioner. He then contended that the accident has taken place due to heavy rain and also due to falling of tarpaulin on the wind screen. He has also argued that the petitioner was not negligent at the time when the accident took place on 13th July, 2004. He further contended that the penalty of removal imposed upon his client was disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. - 3 - 3. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, learned counsel representing the respondent-Corporation has supported the imposition of penalty of removal upon the petitioner. According to him, the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, which has resulted in 11 deaths. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. The accident had taken place on 13th July, 2004. Petitioner has filed reply to the charge-sheet dated 5th August, 2004 on 13th September, 2004. Inquiry Officer has recorded the statements of 4 PWs. and 3 DWs. 6. Respondent-Corporation has examined PW-1, Mr. H.K. Gupta, D.M., H.R.T.C., Dharamshala. He has placed on record the copy of report conducted by him. According to PW-2 Vivek Lakhanpal, on mechanical examination of the bus, it was found that the same was being plied in 5th gear. PW-3, Purshotam Lal has conducted the mechanical inspection of the accidental bus. He has submitted the report also to the investigating officer. PW-4, Mr. Hoshiar Singh has placed on record the copy of F.I.R. before the Inquiry Officer. According to him, petitioner’s headquarter was fixed at Hamirpur as reliever with effect from 28th June, 2003. 7. According to DW-1, Mr. Sudershan Kumar and DW-2, Mr. Rakesh Kumar, the accident has taken place due to heavy rain. DW-3, Banka Ram has not stated the manner, - 4 - in which the accident had taken place. He reached the spot after the accident had taken place. There are contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of DW-1 and DW-2. According to DW-1, Sudershan Kumar, tarpaulin fell down on the road side, whereas, DW-2, Rakesh Kumar states that the tarpaulin fell down on the front wind screen. 8. The petitioner has cross-examined the witnesses produced by the Corporation. He has been given full opportunity to defend himself during the course of inquiry. 9. Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, learned counsel representing the petitioner has failed to point out the breach of any of the mandatory provisions of Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. 10. The Inquiry Officer has rightly concluded that the accident in question had taken place on 13th July, 2004 due to negligent driving by the petitioner. He was plying the bus in 5th gear. The bus was new and put on road on 11th March, 2004. It had covered only 42087 Kms. upto 12th July, 2004. It was also mechanically checked on the same day in the workshop before the accident took place. The report of the Inquiry Officer is speaking and detailed. He has correctly appreciated the evidence led by the parties. 11. Petitioner has been served with memorandum, dated 25th April, 2005 after the receipt of inquiry report by the disciplinary authority. He has been given opportunity to file - 5 - reply to the memorandum. The petitioner has though not been supplied with the copy of inquiry report before issuance of memorandum, dated 25th April, 2005; however, he has failed to prove any prejudice caused to him. It is mandatory that the copy of inquiry report is to be supplied to the delinquent official before the disciplinary authority makes up its mind to impose the penalty after taking into consideration the representation made, if any, against the inquiry report. However, the non-supply of the copy of inquiry report may not be fatal in every case if the employee/delinquent official fails to prove the prejudice caused to him. The disciplinary authority has passed a very speaking and detailed order on 1st July, 2005. The appellate order, dated 9th September, 2005 is also speaking and detailed. Appellate authority has taken into consideration all the facts and circumstances including the manner, in which the accident has taken place, due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner on 13th July, 2004. The accident has claimed 11 lives. Respondent-Corporation has been put to economic loss including damage caused to the bus. The Corporation was involved in criminal litigation and claimants have also filed claim petitions before the learned Motor Accidents Claim Tribunals seeking compensation after the accident has taken place on 13th July, 2004. In view of this, the penalty imposed upon the petitioner is neither - 6 - disproportionate nor harsh. It commensurate with the alleged misconduct. 12. Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the report, Ex.A-5 furnished by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Nadaun, District Hamirpur to the Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur on 26th August, 2004. This report is silent about the manner, in which the accident has actually taken place, and it does not refer to the technical inspection of the bus, which was carried out. However, during the course of disciplinary proceedings, the statements of PW- 1, PW-2 and PW-3 were recorded. According to them the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent act of the driver. PW-3 has conducted the mechanical examination of the bus. 13. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussion made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. May 13, 2011. (sck).