DAYA NAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DAYA Nand, petitioner, has filed the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order dated 22.1.1992 passed by respondent No.3 terminating his service and the order dated 20.12.1994 passed by respondent No.2 rejecting the appeal filed the petitioner against the order dated 22.1.1992.

(2.) THE facts in the present case are not in dispute. The petitioner while working as a driver with respondent No.3 on 2.7.1987 was driving bus No. HYM 8120 on Ambala Jaipur road. The bus was involved in an accident near Karnal as a result whereof Daya Nand was challaned under Sections 279/304A IPC. During the pendency of the criminal case, the petitioner was also charge sheeted departmentally and after completion of the enquiry, was punished through order No.2588/SCD dated 8.7.1987 and his two annual increments were stopped with cumulative effect. The criminal trial resulted in his being convicted by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Karnal on 12.3.1991 and the appeal filed by the petitioner against this judgment has also been rejected. On the basis of this conviction, respondent No.3 passed the impugned order terminating his services which order was served on him during the period he was undergoing imprisonment. The statutory appeal, Annexure P.7, was filed by the petitioner against this order which was dismissed. Against the dismissal of this appeal, the present petition has been filed in which he seeks interference asserting that his services could not have been terminated as this would amount to punishing him twice for the same offence. He has also submitted that according to the settlement which had been arrived at between Haryana Roadways and its workers in cases of chance accident not involving moral turpitude, an employee would not be removed from the service and this settlement was of binding nature under Section 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. He also submitted that in similar cases, the employer has awarded a lesser punishment of stoppage of 5 increments to persons convicted for 18 months and has relied upon the case of one Gurnam Singh, Driver No.315 of the Chandigarh Transport undertaking as an example and has submitted that in view of the treatment meted to Gurnam Singh, the punishment awarded to him was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and, therefore, should be set aside.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have considered the respective submissions made by them.