IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No.4636 of 2008 Judgment reserved on: 04.05.2011 Date of decision:13.6.2011. Smt.Hira Devi and others …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioners : Mr.Dilip Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.A.G. for Respondents-State. Deepak Gupta, J. 1. Shri Pune Singh Sandhu filed an Original Application before the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal which, on abolition of the Tribunal, has been transferred to this Court. Unfortunately, Sh.Pune Singh Sandhu died during the pendency of these proceedings and his legal representatives were brought on record. 2. The original petitioner, by means of this petition, has basically challenged the order Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 dated 8.4.1997 whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. 3. The undisputed facts are that the original petitioner was an ex-serviceman. His name was nominated by the State Sanik Welfare Board for appointment for the post of Driver reserved for Ex-serviceman in the Department of Prisons. He joined as such on 9.5.1996. It is also not disputed that on 16.6.1996 the petitioner was deputed to supervise the work of fabrication of buses of the Prison Department at Tara Devi, Shimla. According to the petitioner, the fabrication which was previously being supervised by Sh.Karam Chand, Warder was almost complete. Petitioner submitted that though he was asked to supervise the work, Karam Chand effectively kept on supervising the work. The petitioner also made a complaint that the fabrication work is not proper. According to the petitioner, since he had not 3 been given driving duty he filed an Original Application alongwith two others in the H.P. Administrative Tribunal praying that the regular drivers be allotted the driving work and the Warders may not be permitted to do driving work. 4. It is not disputed that on 17.10.1996, the petitioner was deputed with multi-purpose Jail Van and directed to take the same from Shimla to Nahan and this vehicle met with an accident at Barog in the evening. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was thereafter got repaired at Mani Mazra and when the petitioner was driving the vehicle back from Mani Mazra it again met with an accident on 17.11.1996. 5. It appears that the petitioner had been appointed without conducting any driving test and thereafter the Department of Prisons entered into correspondence with the HRTC to impart training to its newly recruited drivers. Therefore, the petitioner was deputed to Shimla to undergo the 4 training but the officials of the HRTC refused to impart training to newly recruited drivers of other Departments. Thereafter, the petitioner was again posted back to Nahan and on 15.3.1997 he was asked to show cause why his services be not terminated on the ground that he had caused two accidents. He submitted reply to the show cause notice and thereafter his services were terminated vide the impugned orders. 6. The orders have been challenged on various grounds including the ground of mala fides since according to the petitioner his senior officials were annoyed since he had filed many petitions and representations. 7. This Court is not going into the various irrelevant allegations levelled in the petition. The main question is whether the respondents were justified in terminating the services of the petitioner or not. 8. Reply to the petition was filed by Sh.I.N.S. Sandhu, Additional Director General of Police (Prisons) Himachal Pradesh. In this reply it 5 is stated that when the petitioner complained about the quality of fabrication work a joint Inspection Committee was appointed which submitted its report on 21.8.1996 and it was found that the fabrication had been done strictly in accordance with the specifications given to the builder. The main charge against the petitioner was that he had caused two accidents. Another charge was that after causing first accident he did not report about the same till he reached Nahan. 9. The petitioner was a temporary Government servant. He caused two accidents during the short period when he was entrusted with the bus. The petitioner would have this Court believe that the accidents took place due to manufacturing defects. Even according to the petitioner he left Shimla for Nahan at about 5 p.m. He should have been at Barog latest by 6.30 p.m. and in the month of October it would not be so dark that the petitioner could not see anything. His explanation that the head 6 lights went off appears to be a false explanation. 10. Further more when after repair the bus was brought back from Mani Mazra it again met with an accident. Even according to the petitioner he was hardly given any driving duty and on the two occasions when he was given driving duty he caused accident. The employer in such a situation is justified in protecting the property of the Department and ensuring the safety of its employees. No fault can be found in the order of termination. Therefore, I find no merit in the petition which is accordingly dismissed. No costs. June 13, 2011 ( Deepak Gupta ), PV Judge