SADHU SINGH Vs. HARYANA STATE THROUGH THE SECRETARY, STATE TRANSPORT AND TRANSPORT CONTROLLER COMMISSIONER AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful plaintiff who was working as driver with the State Transport has approached this Court by filing instant appeal Under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity 'the Code'), challenging concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below.

(2.) Plaintiff -appellant joined the Haryana Roadways as driver in April, 1976. He was terminated from service on 23.7.1986. It has been proved on record that a regular departmental enquiry was held against him on the allegation that on 15.10.1985 when he was driving Bus No. HYL -1243 on Karnal -Kaithal route because he caused accident when it collided with another Bus No. 2326 on Kaithal Depot. The other bus suffered damage, which could be repaired by incurring expenditure of Rs.3,600/ -. In the departmental enquiry the charges levelled against the plaintiff -appellant was found to be proved and the explanation submitted by the plaintiff -appellant was considered unsatisfactory. Thereafter, a show cause notice (Ex.DW1/C) was issued proposing to terminate his services. He was not to be given any additional amount except the subsistence allowance paid to him during the suspension period. After considering the reply submitted by the plaintiff -appellant (Ex.DW1/D) both the Courts have recorded the finding that the plaintiff -appellant was given full opportunity to cross -examine the witnesses on behalf of the department during the course of enquiry. He was also granted permission to adduce evidence in defence in enquiry proceedings and also granted opportunity of personal hearing. The aforementioned factual position has been brought out on record by the statement made by DW1. Thereafter the order terminating his services was passed. The trial Court as well as the learned lower Appellate Court did not find any illegality or irregularity either in the enquiry proceedings or in the order of punishment dated 23.7.1986 terminating the services of the plaintiff -appellant. The argument of the plaintiff -appellant that the punishment is not commensurate with the misconduct proved to have been committed by him, has been rejected by both the Courts below. The other argument that the enquiry proceedings were vitiated has also not found favour with either of the two Courts.

(3.) Mr. Pritam Saini, learned counsel for the plaintiff -appellant has made an attempt to persuade me to accept his submission to the effect that the enquiry proceedings have been vitiated as the charges have not been proved. He has also submitted that the negligence of the plaintiff -appellant has to be considered minor in view of the fact that the loss caused to the defendant -respondent is only to the tune of Rs.3,600/ - approximately. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on a Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kailash Nath Gupta v/s. Allahabad Bank, 2003(3) R.S.J. 476. He has also placed reliance on paragraph 47 of the Division Bench Judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Kiran Aggarwal v/s. Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., 2002(1) S.L.R. 176, and a Judgment of this Court in the case of Ganesh Kumar v/s. State of Haryana and Ors., 2002(4) R.S.J. 736.