RAJBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as a clerk in the Transport Department in 1987. He was charge sheeted on 25.8.2004 for major misconduct. Two charges were levelled against him. One, that he came to office under the influence of liquor on 1.6.2004 and, two that he created a scene and misbehaved with his co-employees during office hours and while on duty. The second part of the charge is termed 'din' by the punishing authority and 'noise' by the appellate authority in their respective orders which will be adverted to later in this order. He was removed from service on 6.3.2006 following enquiry instituted on 23.11.2004 where both charges were held to be proved. The petitioner's appeal against the punishment order failed on 4.9.2006. The petitioner challenged the order of removal and the appellate order upholding the punishment order before this Court through CWP No.16029 of 2006.

(2.) The learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 9.12.2010 partly allowed the writ petition by returning a finding that removal from service was too harsh a punishment keeping in view the allegations against the petitioner. The matter was remitted back to the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order and to impose any lesser punishment prescribed under law other than removal from service. The Court noticed that the charges against the petitioner contained two allegations: (i) the petitioner was under the influence of liquor when he attended the office on the fateful day and (ii) that he misbehaved with coemployees. The enquiry officer found both charges proved. This Court, however, found that the first charge was established since the petitioner was medically examined by a government doctor and the report clearly established that the petitioner was under the influence of liquor while on duty. However, on the second charge this Court found that the finding recorded by the enquiry officer was based on no evidence on record. When this Court said that: "However, it is a case where the Enquiry Officer has returned a finding without any evidence on record, in respect of one of the allegations. It seems that the disciplinary authority has been influenced by the findings of the Enquiry Officer wherein he has held allegations of misbehaviour as established.", it could refer only to charge (ii). This Court delved into enquiry proceedings and discovered that none of the witnesses produced by the prosecution testified to petitioner's misbehavior with any employee or that he created any type of hurdle in office work. The order of the learned Single Judge was not appealed against and has therefore, attained finality.

(3.) On remand, the matter was re-examined by the Director General State Transport, Haryana, Chandigarh. A fresh order was passed equally harsh but short of removal. It appears from a reading of it that the disciplinary authority did not pay any attention to the judgment and order of this Court in which only one charge could be said to be established, that is, of coming to office under the influence of liquor. He ignored the specific finding of this court on charge (ii) which held no water. He proceeded to impose major punishment of reduction to the lowest pay in the time scale of pay/pay band to the employee on the assumption that both charges were proved and made an unfair, uncalled for, unacceptable and unfortunate comment in passing (as underlined) that: