IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition (T) No. 8638 of 2008 Judgement reserved on: 19.4.2011. Date of decision: 21.4.2011. Bhag Mal …..Petitioner. Vs. H.R.T.C. & ors. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner : Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. Kuldip Singh, Judge. The petitioner has prayed quashing of office order dated 28.9.2001 Annexure A-3 which has merged in the office order dated 8.7.2002 Annexure A-7 with all consequential benefits including interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the amount due. It has also been prayed that the reduction in pay of the petitioner is also null and void. 2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner on 22.7.1999 was on duty as driver on bus No. HIS-1721 from Kiari to Shimla which met with an accident at Kotiwani due to collapsing of breast wall of the road. The petitioner was suspended and in the departmental inquiry he was held guilty of dereliction of duty. He submitted reply on 8.2.2001. The respondent No.2 vide office order dated 28.9.2001 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? yes …2… Annexure A-3 imposed penalty of reduction of pay to the minimum of the pay scale. The petitioner filed appeal against the penalty order dated 28.9.2001. 3. The respondents started recovery from the petitioner in pursuance to the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla. The respondent No.1-Corporation filed appeal against the award. In the appeal the petitioner has also filed cross- objections. 4. The respondent No.2 vide order dated 14.12.2001 directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.3, 47,000/- with interest. The petitioner filed O.A. No. 8 of 2002 before the erstwhile Tribunal against the recovery which was stayed on 7.1.2002. 5. The petitioner retired in the meantime on 30.4.2002 but his retiral dues have not been released. However, provisional pension of Rs.1310/- has been sanctioned in favour of the petitioner vide letter dated 9.5.2002. 6. The petitioner has filed O.A. No. 975 of 2002 against the order dated 9.5.2002 and the Tribunal on 5.6.2002 had directed the respondents to treat the said O.A. as representation and decide the case as well as the departmental appeal filed by the petitioner. 7. The respondent No.1 vide office order dated 8.7.2002 Annexure A-7 has rejected the appeal, but no findings have been given on the issue of payment of DCRG and other pensionary benefits. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 8. The petition has been contested by the respondents by filing reply in which preliminary objection of maintainability has been …3… taken. The respondents have supported the office order dated 28.9.2001 Annexure A-3 and office order dated 8.7.2002 Annexure A-7. It has been submitted that the inquiry was conducted in accordance with law. The claim petitions have been decided by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla and the respondent No.1 has deposited more than Rs.8,00,000/-. The petitioner was asked to deposit his share Rs.3,47,000/- by the respondents. 9. The retiral benefits have been rightly withheld by the respondents. The appeal filed by the respondents against the award of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was pending so also the cross-objection filed by the petitioner. The departmental appeal filed by the petitioner was considered and after due application of mind, it was rejected. The respondents have prayed for dismissal of the petition. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has prayed mainly the following reliefs in addition to other reliefs:- (i) That the order of demotion passed by respondent No.2 (Annexure A-3) and which has been merged in the order of respondent No.1 is liable to be declared null and void and the applicant is liable to be entitled for the pay which he was drawing before the passing of Annexure A-3 and all consequential benefits. (ii) That the respondent is liable to be directed to pay the interest on the amount to which the applicant is entitled @ 18% per annum as the order of penalty of reduction in pay is null and void. 11. In view of the reliefs prayed in the petition, the controversy is very short. The petitioner has raised grievance against office order dated 28.9.2001 Annexure A-3 and office order dated …4… 8.7.2002 Annexure A-7. No prayer has been made by the petitioner regarding his pensionary dues etc. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that inquiry was not conducted properly by the Inquiry Officer inasmuch as the Inquiry Officer has erred in cross-examining the witnesses. The statements of defence witnesses were not considered and inquiry was not conducted as per rules. It has been submitted that the appellate order is wrong as the grounds taken in the memorandum of appeal have not been considered. The accident took place without any fault of the petitioner but due to breaking of the breast wall. The Corporation has taken contradictory stand in the departmental proceeding and before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal regarding the cause of accident. The principles of natural justice have not been followed inasmuch as the entire record of the departmental proceeding has not been considered properly. 13. It is to be noted that this Court is not sitting in appeal against the impugned Annexures A-3 and A-7. The Inquiry Officer has submitted detailed inquiry report. The Inquiry Officer is well within his right to put questions to the witnesses in the departmental proceedings in order to reach the truth. Simply because in the inquiry report the Inquiry Officer has used the expression cross-examination by the Inquiry Officer of the witnesses that does not mean that he has over stepped the jurisdiction. There is nothing wrong with the Inquiry Officer to put questions to the witness to clear the point. Thus, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that witnesses have …5… been cross-examined by the Inquiry Officer and for this reason the inquiry is vitiated, is rejected. 14. In the inquiry the statements of defence witnesses Man Mohan Chauhan and Mohinder Chauhan have been noticed, therefore, it cannot be said that the Inquiry Officer has not considered the statements of defence witnesses. It has not been argued that it is not a case of no evidence. The respondent No.2 concurred with the inquiry report and recorded that Bhag Mal, Driver had failed to take due precautions required from a driver on a narrow and damaged road which caused accident and, therefore, he was held guilty of the charges. Thereafter, penalty was imposed. The appellate order dated 8.7.2002 is speaking order in which all contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner have been considered. At the time of hearing on behalf of the petitioner, no specific violation of the rule has been pointed out nor any specific ground taken in the memorandum of appeal and not considered by the appellate authority has been pointed out. It cannot be said to be a case of no evidence. 15. It has come on record that in the accident 6 passengers had died and 51 passengers sustained serious injuries. In these circumstances, the penalty imposed is also not on the higher side. There is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. April 21, 2011 ( Kuldip Singh ), (GR) Judge.