IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 6486 of 2008 Date of decision: 28.02.2011 ________________________________________________________________ Suresh Kumar. ...Petitioner. Versus HP Road Transport Corporation & another .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? Yes. ________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). The petitioner was in the employment of the respondent-corporation as Bus Conductor. On the fateful day, i.e., 18.08.1994, he was on duty on bus No. HP 22-0583, bound from Delhi to Harsipattan. When the bus reached Bhota, in District Hamirpur, it was checked by the Head Office Flying Squad led by Shri Suresh Chand, Inspector and it was found that 40 passengers were traveling in the bus, besides goods weighing 480 kg being transported therein. On checking, one passenger, traveling from Delhi to Hamirpur was found to be without ticket. Similarly, no ticket was also issued in respect of the goods weighing 480 kg. On these allegations, it was concluded that the petitioner had mis- 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. ...2... appropriated a sum of ` 910/-. Consequently, he was proceeded against departmentally. The defence raised by the petitioner was that one passenger, namely, Shri Ashok Kumar, who was examined during the departmental enquiry as DW-1, had boarded the bus at Una alongwith the aforesaid goods. He had already taken tickets for himself and the goods from the booking counter at bus stand Una. However, when the bus started from Una he was left behind as he had gone somewhere and the bus proceeded towards its destination to Harsipattan via Hamirpur. Under such circumstances, he had hired a taxi from Una and had followed the bus and reached Bhota where the bus was being checked by the Flying Squad. He had picked up a quarrel with the driver and conductor of the bus as to why they had left him at Una. The said passenger had also produced his tickets to the Flying Squad, but all these facts were not taken into consideration and a case relating to non-issuing of tickets was foisted upon the petitioner by the Flying Squad. However, the defence raised by the petitioner did not find favour with the Enquiry Officer, who submitted his report, on the basis of which, the disciplinary authority removed him from service. 2. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed statutory service appeal to the Divisional Manager, being the Appellate Authority, which was rejected, as conveyed to the petitioner vide memo dated 18.05.1998, Annexure A-20, which is as under: Annexure A-20 “HIMACHAL ROAD TPT CORPORATION HAMIRPUR” ...3... No. HRTC. HMR. Estt/Vig/ 1027 dt. 18.5.98 To, Sh. Suresh Kumar, Ex-Conductor Hamirpur. SUBJECT: APPEAL CASE OF SH. SURESH KUMAR-II CONDUCTOR. Memo, Your appeal dated 31.10.97 has been considered by the competent Authority and rejected. Sd/- Regional Manager, HRTC Hamirpur Home Address:- Sh. Suresh Kumar Conductor S/o sh. Ram Lal Vill. Khudi Ward No. 8 Naya Nagar Hamirpur (HP)” 3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed statutory revision petition to the Managing Director of the respondent-corporation, which was also rejected vide a three line cryptic memo dt. 31.10.1998, Annexure A-22, which reads as under: Annexure A-22 “HIMACLA ROAD TPT TRANSPORATION HAMIRPUR No. HRTC.HMR.Estt/Vig/PF/98-9092 To Shri Suresh Kumar s/o Sh Ram Lal, vill Khudi Ward No. 8 Naya Nagar, Hamirpur ...4... Dated 31.10.98 SUB: REGARDING APPEAL Memo Reference your appeal dated 31.10.97 which has been considered by the competent authority (Managing Director) HRTC Shimla and rejected. Sd/- Regional Manager, HRTC Hamirpur.” 4. A bare perusal of the aforesaid memos dated 18.05.1998, Annexure A-20 and 31.10.1998, Annexure A-22, would go to show that the same are absolutely non-speaking orders and thus bad in the eyes of law, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank and others, (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 570. The allegations against the petitioner, the defence raised by him during the course of enquiry and the contentions raised in the appeal and revision do not find any mentioned therein. Thus the appellate order, Annexure A-20, dated 18.05.1998 and the revisional order dated 312.10.1998, Annexure A-22, cannot be sustained and are liable to be quashed and are accordingly quashed and the matter is remitted to the appellate authority, i.e., Divisional Manager, Hamirpur, H.P., to decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner afresh in accordance with law by adverting to the contentions raised by him therein and looking into the records of the case after affording an opportunity of being heard to him, if so desired, within two months from the date of production of copy of this judgment by ...5... the petitioner. 5. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of, so also pending CMP(s), if any. Copy dasti. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 28th February, 2011 (virender)