BHAGAT RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constituion, Shri Bhagat Ram has prayed that the orders passed by the General Manager, Himachal Government Transport Simla, Annexure 'A' reducing his pay to the time scale of Rs, 80 4-120 dated January. 3, 1965. may be quashed. This order was passed as a result of departmental proceedings taken against him for misdemceanour under the following circumstances. He was a driver employed by the Himachal Pradesh Government Transport. One Shri Prem Nath was aninspector in the same service in the Bilaspur division. According to the Department the case against the petitioner was that while be was plying his bus from Mandi to Rupar on October 16, 196, Prem Nath Inspector signalled him at a place near village jharol to stop the bus for purposes of checking but the petitioner did not stop and drove on to evade checking. When the bus, however, stopped some distance away the Inspector on checking found that it was carrying three passengers without tickets. A note to this effect was made by him on the check slips to which the petitioner took strong objection. This led to a quarrel between him and the Inspector during which the Inspector was pushed out of the bus and manhandled by the petitioner. The matter went up to the police and the petitioner was challaned under sections 832 and 189 of the Indian Penal, Code. During the pendency of the criminal case the Department placed him under suspension on November 29, 1961, but later on his being acquitted by the criminal Court on November 6, 1964, be was reinstated by order of the Regional. Manager dated.January 2, 1964, but by an order of the same date in exercise of powers conferred on him by sub rule (1) of rule 12 of the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1957, hereafter caled the Rules, the Regional Manager again suspended him with immediate effect. A charge-sheet was then served and three charges were framed against, the petitioner. The first charge related to his failure. to stop the bus on being signaled to do so by, the inspector the second. charge in ressect of the embezzlement of Government revenue with mala fide intention and the third charge was for misdemeanour and read as under :-

(2.) The impugned order has been assailed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on several grounds. He submits that the suspension order dated January 2, 1964, copy Annexure 'D' had been passed by the regional Manager who had no authority to do so, that this inquiry held against the petitioner was conducted by an officer who was subordinate to the General Manager and the same was therefore vitiated, and that this inquiry was also not fair and the report of the Inquiry Officer was had in as far as he did not properly appreciate the evidence produced before him. The dismissal of the appeal by the Lieutenant Governor without giving a hearing to the petitioner is also attacked as being contrary to the rules of natural justice. Lastly it is urged that the petitioner was entitled to his full pay and allowances for the period of his first suspension i. e. with effect from November 29, 1961, to the date of reinstatement on January 2, 1964

(3.) In support of his contention that the Regional Manager was not competent to pass the order Annexure 'D' and to suspend the petitioner the learned counsel places reliance on Notification No. A, 88-45/56 dated January 30,1962, issued by the Leutenent Governor in exercise of powers conferred upon him by Part III and Part IV of the Schedule to the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appear Rules 1957 read with clause (b) of sub rule (2) of rule 14 of the said Rules. He cantends that his client was a class III employee falling within the category of "all other Departments (Except 25 Ganeral Administration Department) (District Administration)" and as such in his case the appointing authority was the head of the department and the authority competent to impose panalties on him was also the head of the department; while Regional Manager who suspended him was only a head of office and not the head of the department and as such was not competent to pass the order of suspension. This argument has no merits because this notification specified only the authorities competent to inflict the penalties specified in rule 13 of the Rules. The suspension of the petitioner vide Annexure 'D' was ordered by way of penalty. Action was taken under rule 12 of the Rules, which provides that the appointing authority' or any other authority to which it is subordinate or any authority empowered by the President in that behalf may place a Government servant under suspension. It is the petitioner's own case that his suspension was ordered pending departmental action. The inquiry was not started immediately probably because of the pendency of the criminal case and was started only alter the final decision of the criminal case but that did not charge the nature of the suspension.