IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.M. No.520 of 2009 in L.P.A. No.155 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.7.2009 Mam Raj. -----Appellant Vs. The State of Haryana & others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Deepak Balyan, Advocate for the appellant. ----- ORDER: 1. The appellant is aggrieved by dismissal of the writ petition against order of dismissal from service. 2. The appellant was employed as Driver on 14.12.1980. On 21.9.1987, he was retired due to weak eye- sight. On 25.4.1990, he was ordered to be reinstated, on the ground that he was only 43 years of age and had been appointed in the quota for ex-servicemen. The order was passed without payment of retrenchment compensation. No inquiry was held on the allegation that he was medically unfit. It was observed that though it was not appropriate to reinstate LPA No.155 of 2009 him as driver, he could be accommodated on another job. After reinstatement, while driving a vehicle, one person was killed, which led to registration of criminal case against the appellant under Section 304-A IPC on 11.6.1995. After trial, he was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court on 20.3.1998, which order was affirmed in appeal on 3.11.1998 and by this Court in revision on 18.11.1998. His services were terminated on the basis of conviction on 22.12.1998. Against the order of dismissal, which was affirmed on appeal, writ petition was filed. 3. The writ petition was contested with the plea that the appellant was given lighter duty but as the appellant himself was interested in the driving duty, he was allowed to drive on local route. 4. Learned Single Judge held that the appellant never protested when he was given duties of driver nor any representation was made by him to any higher authority. He accepted the duty of driver and in the process, acted negligently. The writ petition was dismissed. The appeal has been filed with about one year’s delay. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 6. On 18.3.2009, following order was passed:- “Learned counsel for the appellant states, the appellant was inducted into the service of the Haryana Roadways as a driver in 1980. He continued to discharge his duties in the aforesaid capacity till he was compulsorily retired in 1987, on 2 LPA No.155 of 2009 account of defective eyesight. The appellant had impugned the order by which he was compulsorily retired. Whereupon, Civil Writ Petition No.5139 of 1989 was allowed by this Court on 25.4.1990. Learned counsel for the appellant has expressly pointed out, that while allowing the aforesaid writ petition, although this Court had directed the reinstatement of the appellant, the Haryana Roadways was directed not to reinstate the appellant as a driver. In compliance with the directions issued by this Court, the appellant was reinstated vide order dated 11.9.1990. He was, however, not required to discharge the duties of the post of driver. This was in compliance with the directions issued by this Court. In total disregard to the aforesaid directions, however, in 1995, the appellant was again directed to discharge the duties of the post of driver. Soon thereafter, the appellant was involved in an accident, which led to his conviction under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. As a consequence of the aforesaid conviction, the appellant was then terminated from service. Having suffered the sentence imposed upon the appellant, he seeks reinstatement into service. It is the vehement submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that the very fact that the Haryana Roadways required the appellant to discharge duties as a driver, was in total disregard of the order passed by this Court on 25.4.1990, and as such, it is submitted that the appellant cannot be held blame-worthy for the accident, which eventually led to his conviction. Before we entertain 3 LPA No.155 of 2009 the claim raised by the appellant on the basis of the judgement rendered by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.5139 of 1989, it would be necessary for us to ascertain, whether or not, this plea was raised by the appellant as a defence in the criminal prosecution initiated against him, wherein the appellant was convicted under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant is, accordingly, directed to place a copy of the judgement rendered in the aforesaid criminal prosecution, on the record of this case. Adjourned sine die. List as and when the needful has been done.” 7. Copy of the judgment of conviction has been filed by learned counsel for the appellant, but he accepts that he never took the defence that duty of driver was assigned to him against his protest. There is nothing to show that the appellant ever protested at the relevant time against the giving of duty of driver. No doubt, the department itself should not have given the said duty, but the appellant cannot be exonerated of his misconduct on that ground. Having been negligent in driving, the job for which he has been employed, resulting in death of a human being, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order of learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition. 8. In view of above, we need not go into the justification or otherwise of delay of 379 days in filing the appeal. 4 LPA No.155 of 2009 9. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE July 17, 2009 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY ) ashwani JUDGE 5