KALAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been working on the post of Conductor with the Haryana Roadways, Jind. He has prayed that the order dated 25.5.2004 (Annexure P.8) passed by the Disciplinary Authority i.e. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Jind dismissing him from service be quashed. The afore- mentioned order was upheld by the appellate authority but the punishment of dismissal was reduced by giving him last opportunity and reducing him at the minimum of pay scale for a period of five years. The petitioner was also not to be paid any financial benefits for the period spent by him under suspension or for the period spent out of service. However, that period was to be counted for all other benefits.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a Conductor with the Haryana Roadways. It is claimed that he has been awarded commendation certificate and appreciation certifies issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Jind (annexures P.1 and P.2). On 21.11.2002 (Annexure P.3) a charge sheet was issued to him contemplating infliction of major penalty under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1987 (for brevity 'the 1987 Rules'). The petitioner was charged with the allegation of mis-appropriation of an amount of Rs. 468/-. He submitted his reply to the charge sheet on 16.12.2002 (Annexure P.4) The reply was found unsatisfactory and the Accounts officer, Haryana Road Transport, Jind was appointed as an Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 25.6.2003 (Annexure P.5) holding that the charges against the petitioner were not proved. However, the General Manager on the perusal of the case file found that the inquiry officer failed to consider certain issues and recorded his dis-agreement with the report of the inquiry officer. The note of dis- agreement as recorded by the General Manager on five issues reads as under :

(3.) Mr. R.N. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Punishing Authority-cum-General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Jind has committed grave error in law by not handing over a copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner before recording the note of dissent on the five issues. According to the learned counsel it was mandatory for the Punishing Authority-cum- General Manager to supply to the petitioner a copy of the inquiry report and report of dissent before issuing a show cause notice expressing his opinion that the petitioner was guilty of the charges levelled against him. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on para 29 of the judgement of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director ECIL v. B. Karunakar, 1993 4 SCC 727 and a Division Bench judgement of this Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2006 3 SCT 799. He has prayed that the impugned order passed by the appellate authority dated 30.9.2004 (Annexure P.10) be set aside and the petitioner be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.