RAJINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-appellant is aggrieved against the judgment passed by the learned Addl. District Judge dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for declaration challenging the order terminating his services.

(2.) The appellant was employed as Conductor with Haryana Roadways. He was found to have received Rs. 747/- as fare from 21 bus passengers but had not issued tickets to them. Unpunched tickets were collected from the appellant at the time as a proof of not issuing tickets. Thereafter the appellant was placed under suspension and ultimately after conducting departmental inquiry the order of termination of services was passed on 26.11.1996. The appeal against the order of dismissal was dismissed by the Transport Commissioner, Haryana on 18.7.2000. Subsequently, the appellant filed the civil suit challenging the order of termination passed by the punishing authority as well as the appellate authority. The suit was decreed. However, in appeal the judgment and decree of the trial Court was set aside and the suit was dismissed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon State of Haryana v. Mohan Singh,1985 1 AllLJ 597 to contend that the case is of no evidence. However, it has been found by the lower appellate court that the services of the appellant had been dismissed after conducting inquiry. DW3 Laxman Dass was appointed as Inquiry Officer after the reply submitted by the appellant to the charge-sheet was found unsatisfactory. Inquiry proceedings Ex. P5 were conducted wherein statements of Inspectors Thakur Dass and Sumer Singh were recorded and both of them were cross-examined by the appellant. The statement of the appellant was recorded as well as Kailash Chand, driver, who appeared as a defence witness. Since the Inspectors, who had found that the plaintiff had not issued the tickets, were examined by the Inquiry Officer, the order of dismissal passed in pursuance of departmental inquiry was found not suffering from any infirmity so as to warrant interference by the civil court.