RAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH this writ petition is filed to impugn the order of punishment of stoppage of one increment with permanent effect and to challenge the remarks of integrity doubtful endorsed in the A.C.Rs of the petitioner for the years 1991 -92, 1992 -93 and 1993 -94, yet an incidental question relating to suppression of fact by way of nondisclosure and the extent of its effect on the right of a person to access to justice, would also arise in this case. The petitioner, who is serving as a Conductor in Haryana Roadways, was issued a charge sheet on 15.7.1993 (Annexure P -1). Some adverse remarks were also endorsed in his annual confidential reports for the years 1991 -92, 1992 -93 and 1993 -94. The petitioner has not made mention to the allegations for which he was issued charge sheet but from the reply, it can be seen that bus conducted by the petitioner was checked on 27.6.1993 and it was found that the petitioner had taken full fare from thirty and a half passengers but had not issued them tickets. The petitioner was, thus, accused of embezzling a sum of Rs. 1,016/ -. Enquiry was ordered and the Enquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner of the charge on 18.2.1996. The Disciplinary Authority, however, differed with the finding returned by the Enquiry Officer and issued a show cause notice to the petitioner, calling upon him to show cause as to why his services be not terminated. As per the petitioner, this show cause notice was issued without recording any dissent note. The petitioner filed reply but was awarded a penalty of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect on 7.1.2000.

(2.) THE petitioner had remained quiet for over 4 years till he filed appeal on 10.10.2004 against the adverse remarks endorsed in his A.C.Rs and against the order of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. As per the averments made in the petition, the appeal filed by the petitioner against adverse remarks endorsed in the A.C.Rs was rejected on 29.12.2008 and the petitioner thereafter has filed the writ petition in March 2010.

(3.) THE remarks, which have been endorsed in the confidential reports of the petitioner for various years, have also been justified, which were duly conveyed to him. It is accordingly stated that there is no reason or a cause made out to call for any interference in the order of punishment or against the remarks endorsed in the annual confidential report of the petitioner.