MAHABIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The services of the petitioner has been terminated on the ground that he sought employment on the basis of a fake driving licence. It has also come on record that in case FIR No. 56 dated 13.5.2000, registered at Police Station Kalayat, the petitioner alleged to have caused accident. The victims of the accident made claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for brevity, 'the Tribunal'). According to the impugned order dated 14.6.2006 (P-6) an amount of Rs. 2,40,000/-, 1,97,000/- and 1,51,000/- along with 9% interest have been awarded to various persons. In its award dated 12.02.2002, the Tribunal has also recorded categorical finding that the petitioner was holding a fake licence. It was ordered that initial payment was to be made by the Insurance Company and thereafter it was to be reimbursed by the respondent-State. The total amount suffered by the department is Rs. 6,65,543/-.

(2.) The fact that driving licence was fake at the time when he joined service, has been admitted by the petitioner. It is appropriate to mention that the General Manager vide its order dated 25.2.2004 has imposed a punishment of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect upon the petitioner while taking a lenient view. The aforementioned view has been reversed by the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government Haryana, Transport Department after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The aforementioned course has been adopted when an appeal filed by one Subhash Chander was being heard by the Financial Commissioner and he had cited the order of the General Manager dated 25.02.2004 to argue that the petitioner was given lenient punishment whereas he was dismissed from service when the charges were identical. The views of the Financial Commissioner, is evident from the operative para of the impugned order, which reads as under:-

(3.) Mr. Ashwani Bakshi, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the tenor and language of Rule 14 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 (for brevity, 'the 1987 Rules'), does not clothe the Financial Commissioner with the power to revise the order, especially when Rule 35 of the Haryana Transport Department (Group-C) Haryana Roadways Service Rules, 1995 (for brevity, 'the 1995 Rules') is kept in view. According to the learned counsel, Rule 35 of the 1995 Rules, which regulate the service conditions of the petitioner, confine the operation of 1987 Rules to the matters relating to discipline, penalties and appeals only and it does not extend to revision. According to the learned counsel, the Financial Commissioner while deciding the appeal of Subhash Chander was not within his jurisdiction to ask for the record in exercise of revisional jurisdiction and, therefore, reliance placed on Rule 14 of the 1987 Rules by the respondents is wholly misplaced. We have thoughtfully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and are of the view that there is no merit in the same. Rule 14 of the 1987 Rules categorically postulate that the Head of the Department/Government is competent to call and examine record of any case in which a subordinate had passed any order by inflicting penalties specified in Rule 4 of the 1987 Rules. A perusal of Rule 14 of the 1987 Rules shows that the Government could even call for the record of a case in which no order has been passed or penalty inflicted. There are wide powers conferred on the Government to take a decision in accordance with law after further investigation and examination of record, provided, in case the penalty is to be enhanced then an opportunity of hearing is required to be granted to such a Government employee. The aforementioned procedure has been duly complied with. Rule 14 of the 1987 Rules is reproduced hereunder for the facility of reference:-