IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA C. W. P. No. 775 of 2007 Date of decision: 17.7. 2009 H.R.T.C. & Ors. …..Petitioner Versus Anant Ram ……Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 no For the Petitioner: Mr. H.S. Rawat, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J (Oral). By means of this writ petition, the petitioner- Himachal Road Transport Corporation (HRTC) has challenged the order dated 4.1.2007, passed by the then H.P. State Administrative Tribunal in O.A No. 2715/1999 allowing the Original Application filed by the respondent. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that respondent, who is working as a driver with the H.R.T.C., was charged-sheeted with having consumed liquor while on duty on 4.10.1994. Another charge framed against him 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes - 2 - was that he had not attended duty on 1.10.1994. Pursuant to the charge-sheet, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent-employee. The respondent employee some times on 24.10.1997 sent a letter to the Inquiry Officer in which he stated that the inquiry has been going on for a long and therefore, he requested the Divisional Manager to impose whatever penalty is deemed fit by him. Reason for filing this letter appears to be that the inquiry was pending since long and may be disposed of. This letter was treated to be an admission of guilt on the part of the employee and thereafter he was ordered to be removed from service. The learned Tribunal held that this admission was not an admission of guilt and since the removal had been ordered without holding proper inquiry, the Tribunal quashed the order of removal and directed the reinstatement of the applicant with all consequential benefits. We have heard Mr. H.S. Rawat, learned counsel appearing for the H.R.T.C. and Mr. Vinod Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. - 3 - We have perused the letter dated 24.10.1997 which is in Hindi addressed by the driver to the Inquiry Officer. By this letter the employee has not admitted any of the charges levelled against him. All that he has stated is that any suitable penalty may be imposed. This part of the letter cannot be used to raise a presumption of admission of guilt. Admission of guilt has to be very specific. It is obvious that the delinquent employee being irritated by the delays in the inquiry sent such a letter. Since this letter did not amount to a confession on the part of the employee, the H.R.T.C. was bound to conduct the inquiry in accordance with law. This inquiry having not been conducted, the order of removal has rightly been held to be illegal. We find no error in the order of Tribunal. Mr. H.S. Rawat has lastly urged that the direction regarding the payment of back wages may be modified or set aside. We cannot accept this contention also. The termination of the petitioner was ordered on 24.10.1998 and the O.A. was filed soon thereafter in the year 1999, after exhausting the remedy of appeal. There is no delay on the part of the employee. In fact, once the O.A. had been filed and it had been pointed that the letter - 4 - dated 24.10.1997 did not amount to confession, it would have been much better if the H.R.T.C. had itself withdrawn the order. In any way, we find no reason to interfere with the directions passed by the learned Tribunal. The writ petition is rejected. No orders as to costs. CMP No. 1333/2007 In view of the disposal of the main petition, this application is also disposed of. (Deepak Gupta),J. July 17, 2009 (Surinder Singh),J (cm)