RAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who had been serving as a driver under the Haryana Roadways has filed the instant writ petition impugning the order dated 16.02.2005 (Annexure P-1) passed by the General Manager, Haryana State Transport, Rohtak whereby his services have been terminated. Still further challenge is to the order dated 06.04.2011 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Additional Transport Commissioner, Haryana as also order dated 22.06.2012 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government Haryana Transport Department whereby the first appeal and second appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of termination have been rejected.

(2.) A perusal of the impugned order (Annexure P-1) would reveal that the petitioner had absented himself continuously w.e.f. 01.07.2001. Such period of absence continued up to 05.08.2003. In the light of having remained absent for such period, the petitioner was served with a chargesheet for imposition of a major penalty under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987. The petitioner chose not to respond to the charge-sheet. An Enquiry Officer was appointed vide order dated 02.06.2003. The petitioner again for the reasons best known to him did not associate himself with the enquiry proceedings. The enquiry report furnished, recorded a finding against the petitioner holding him to be willfully absent from duty for the period 01.07.2001 to 05.08.2003. The competent authority agreeing with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, issued a show cause notice dated 16.09.2003 which was received by the petitioner on 19.09.2003. Yet again the petitioner did not submit any reply to the show cause notice. Apparently, the petitioner thereafter was given a number of opportunities for grant of personal hearing but he did not avail the same. Under such circumstances, the respondent-department got a notice published in the leading newspaper of the State for affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. It is against such factual position whereby the petitioner having not even availed the opportunity of personal hearing that the impugned order of termination from service was passed holding him to be willfully absent from duty from 01.07.2001 to 05.08.2003. Such a view stands affirmed in the first appeal as also the second appeal preferred by the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently argue that respondent no. 3 while dismissing the first appeal and respondent no. 2 while dismissing the second appeal, have taken into consideration certain facts & circumstances which were not even a part of the chargesheet and enquiry proceedings. The precise submission raised is that the past record of the petitioner and other punishments that have been imposed could not have been taken into consideration while deciding the first and second appeals preferred by the petitioner. Even a plea of discrimination has been raised by adverting to the orders Annexure P-7 and Annexure P-8 along with the petition wherein other employees of the Haryana State Transport Department against whom also a similar charge of being absent from duty having been duly proved have been dealt with leniently and instead of imposing the extreme penalty of termination, such employees have been put to certain financial loss in terms of withholding of increments/placing of the employees at the initial stage of pay scale.