IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No.2674 of 2008 (OA No.1745/1995) Judgment reserved on : 29.6.2009 Date of decision : July 20, 2009. Yudhvir Singh …Petitioner. Versus H.R.T.C. and another ....Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. Kuldip Chand, Judge On the abolition of Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Original Application No. 1745 of 1995 which was filed in the erstwhile Tribunal was transferred in view of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (transfer of decided and pending cases and applications) Act, 2008 to this Court and after transfer, Original Application No. 1745 of 1995 has been registered as CWP(T) No.2674 of 2008. 2. The petitioner in the petition has prayed for quashing Annexure A-1 dated 15.10.1992 vide which he was removed from 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? yes 2 service with all consequential benefits. It has been pleaded that the charge against the petitioner was that while he was on duty as Conductor on bus No. HIK-3211 Manali – Pathankot service., the said bus was checked at Khushinagar by Inspectors Suresh Kumar and Ram Lal along with Regional Manager, Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Pathankot. On checking, it was found that 17 passengers were without tickets from 32 miles to Jassur. The petitioner had collected Rs. 110.50 from passengers but tickets for only Rs. 25.50 were issued. The other passengers were also found without tickets. The petitioner did not issue tickets to them to the tune of Rs. 22.50. The inquiry was conducted. The Inquiry Officer submitted inquiry report dated 19.8.1992 to disciplinary authority. Lateron, the petitioner was served memo dated 24.9.1992 Annexure A-4 and the petitioner was ultimately removed from service vide office order dated 15.10.1992 Annexure A-1. 3. The petitioner filed appeal to the General Manager of the Corporation at Dharamshala and also to Chairman against the punishment order dated 15.10.1992, but no decision was taken on the appeal. He filed CWP No. 876 of 1993 in this Court, which was decided on 30.12.1994 and was dismissed on the ground of maintainability. The petitioner then filed Original Application No. 694 of 1995 which was decided on 25.4.1995 vide Annexure A-3 by erstwhile Tribunal. The Tribunal ordered that the application be treated as representation to the Managing Director of the Corporation who shall consider the case of the petitioner on merits in accordance with law and decide the same within a period of three months with liberty to petitioner to approach again on the same 3 cause of action. The representation of the petitioner was rejected on 7.7.1995. 4. The petitioner has assailed the inquiry report on the grounds that the inquiry was conducted against the principle of natural justice. The Corporation did not produce two material witnesses. The Inquiry officer relied on the statement of Ram Lal, Inspector an official witness. The statement of Ram Lal was not corroborated. The practical difficulties faced by a conductor, were not taken into consideration. The impugned order suffers from material irregularities inasmuch as the same has been issued by Regional Manager imposing penalty of removal from service whereas Divisional Manager was the appointing authority of the petitioner. The penalty is harsh keeping in view the imputations of alleged misconduct. 5. The respondents have contested the petition and have pleaded that penalty of removal from service was imposed upon the petitioner after following due process of law. The representation filed by the petitioner was decided on 7.7.1995 by the competent authority after considering all the facts of the case. The passengers had already travelled 24 and 10 kilometers after boarding the bus and the petitioner was found sitting idle on the seat. Ram Lal, Inspector has fully proved the case of the Corporation. The disciplinary authority after considering the inquiry report dated 19.8. 1992 had come to the conclusion that the petitioner was not a fit person to be retained in service, hence show cause notice was issued to petitioner vide memo dated 24.9.1992. The petitioner replied on 12.10.1992 to the memo dated 24.9.1992. The penalty 4 of removal from service was issued on 15.10.1992. The petitioner did not file any appeal to General Manager of the Corporation at Dharamshala but he filed appeal to the Chairman of the Corporation. In the meantime, before any decision could be taken in appeal, the petitioner filed writ petition in the High Court which was decided on 30.12.1994. The petitioner was given full opportunity during inquiry. The appointing authority of the petitioner was Regional Manager, who was competent to issue order of removal from service. As per Annexure R-1, 30 cases of irregularities were detected against the petitioner. 6. Heard and perused the record. 7. The respondents have specifically pleaded that Regional Manager was the appointing authority of the petitioner. The petitioner has not placed any material on record to show that Divisional Manager was the appointing authority of the petitioner. Therefore, the Regional Manager was fully competent to pass office order of removal from service on 15.10.1992. 8. The grievance of the petitioner is that the inquiry officer has relied on the statement of Ram Lal, Inspector and the respondents have not produced other two material witnesses in the inquiry. It is not the case of the petitioner that the case is of no evidence. The quality of evidence matters and not number of witnesses to prove a particular fact. It is also not the case of the petitioner that Ram Lal, Inspector was not present when the bus was checked. It is not the case of the petitioner that Ram Lal, Inspector in any way was biased against him. This Court is not sitting in appeal against the order of removal of petitioner from service after 5 conducting inquiry. The petitioner has not pointed out any procedural irregularity in conducting the inquiry which goes to the root of the case. It is the case of the respondent that as many as 30 irregularities were found against the petitioner vide Annexure R-1. The quantum of punishment imposed by disciplinary authority falls within the domain of the disciplinary authority. The petitioner has failed to make out any case for interference. 9 . In the light of above discussion, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. ( Kuldip Singh ), July 20 , 2009, Judge. (GR)