DEV DUTT Vs. STATE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner lias challenged the order of disciplinary authority/General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Kaithal dated January 23, 1990, terminating his services and the appellate order dated September 22, 1993 passed by the State Transport Commissioner, Haryana affirming in appeal the order of the disciplinary authority dated January 23, 1990, in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The petitioner was employed as a Conductor in Haryana Roadways. He was posted as such with bus bearing Registration No. 3449 on May 20, 1986. Sh. Jia Lal Inspector and Bicha Ram, Adda Conductor checked the bus at Fairan and found that the petitioner had charged full fare of Rs. 36/- from 18 passengers from Narwana to Naher and Rs. 93/- from 31 passengers from Narwana to Kaloda, but had not issued any tickets to the passengers He embezzled the Government money to the tune of Rs. 129/-. The Inspector submitted a complaint to the disciplinary authority. The petitioner was placed under suspension Charge memo was served upon him, but he did not file reply to the same. A regular enquiry was ordered against him. The petitioner did not join the enquiry proceedings. The Enquiry Officer, after recording evidence, came to the following conclusions- "After reading all the documents including the report and statement given by the complainant present on the enquiry file I have reached the conclusion that the complainant has been able to prove the allegations levelled against the employee. Because the employee was directed to join the enquiry vide registered letters of this office but the employee did not come present knowingly before the enquiry officer. The non-attendance of the enquiry by the employee is proof of the fact that he accepts the allegations levelled against him and wants to say nothing in his defence. After carefully perusing the enquiry file and all the relevant facts and after seeming the registered letter and their acknowledgment I have no option but to hold the employee guilty. 1 consider Shri Dev Dut Conductor No. 243 fully guilty of the above case because he knowingly did not come present in the enquiry even after receipt of the letters pertaining to the enquiry. The enquiry file from pages 1 to 160 are sent to you for necessary action."

(3.) On receipt of the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority issued him a second show cause notice as to why the proposed punishment be not inflicted upon him. The petitioner was duly served with the show cause notice, but he did not file reply to the same. The disciplinary authority found that the charge of embezzlement of Govt, money stood proved against the petitioner and it ordered termination from service. The relevant portion of the order of the disciplinary authority dated January 23, 1990, reads as under:-