NANAK CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is working as a Driver with the Haryana Roadways has approached this Court with a prayer for setting aside the order dated 18.1.1999 ( Annexure P.6) passed by the Additional Transport Controller, Haryana (respondent no.2) dismissing his appeal and order dated 26.7.1993 ( Annexure P.4) passed by the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hisar (respondent no.3) whereby he has been punished with stoppage of four annual grade increments with cumulative effect on account of causing accident while driving bus No. HR-20- 9850 on 21.8.1992.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has been working with the Haryana Roadways at Gurgaon Depot. When he was on duty on 21.8.1992 while driving bus No. HR-20-9850 enroute Hisar to Chandigarh he caused the accident about 6-7 kms. prior to approaching Narwana town and the passengers suffered injuries. Two passengers were removed to Civil Hospital, Narwana while seven of them had to be admitted to Civil Hospital, Hisar. The accident is alleged to have been caused by the carelessness of the petitioner as he was alleged to be talking to the passengers. The petitioner was suspended on 25.8.1992 on the basis of the report sent by the Traffic Manager. He was subsequently charge sheeted vide order dated 11.9.1992 to which he submitted his reply. Subsequently an Enquiry Officer was appointed on 25.2.1993 who conducted the enquiry and submitted his report dated 9.6.1993 ( Annexure P.3). On the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer, who found the petitioner guilty of all the charges, he was issued a show cause notice which has been duly replied. He was also afforded an opportunity of hearing in person. Respondent no.3 who is the punishing authority accepted the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer holding him guilty of the charges of negligent driving. However, keeping in view the fact that he has rendered satisfactory service, he took lenient view and instead of dispensing with his services, he awarded him punishment of stoppage of four annual grade increments with cumulative effect. His salary was also limited to the subsistence allowance during the suspension period. Accordingly, the petitioner was reinstated in service with immediate effect. Against the afore-mentioned order of punishment, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Transport Controller- respondent no.2. The appeal filed by him was also dismissed on 18.1.1999 by the State Transport Controller by observing as under: After thoroughly going through the record of the case I have reached the conclusion that there is no merit in the appeal because the bus met with an accident on 21.8.1992 about 6/7 kilometers prior to Narwana on account of the negligent driving by the appellant and on account of this all the passengers on board the bus suffered injuries on their legs and head etc. Out of them 21 passengers received treatment at civil Hospital Narwana, seven passengers including the bus driver (appellant) and the Conductor where shifted to the Civil Hospital Hissar. On enquiry from the passengers in the hospital they informed that the driver was talking to a passenger who was sitting on the Bonnet of the bus and he was so busy in talking with him and he did not notice a four wheeler which (?) reached near the bus, he out of confusion tried to take the bus aside and on account of this reason the bus went out of control and it got down on the kacha portion and then (?) struck a tree. In this accident the entire body of the bus was damaged and the engine and gear box was got separated. Meaning thereby the bus was almost finished. The department suffered a loss of 4/5 lacs on account of his negligence. Hence I understand that the General Manager by not awarding punishment of dispensing with the services of the appellant when he was negligent in driving the bus and punishing him by stopping merely four annual increments with cumulative effect has already dealt with him with leniency. Hence I found no merit in the appeal of the appellant and reject the same.

(3.) When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 7.2.2000, the hearing was deferred in order to enable the petitioner to place on record copies of some documents like FIR dated 21.8.1992 and the case was adjourned sine die on 28.3.2000. Accordingly, the documents has been placed on record and the matter has now been put up for motion hearing. Mr. O.P.Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised two fold submissions before us. Firstly, he has submitted that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are not sustainable as there is no statement made by the passengers to show that the petitioner was talking to the passengers while driving the bus immediately before the accident on 21.8.1992. According to the learned counsel, the findings are without any evidence and therefore the enquiry report dated 9.6.1993 (Annexure P.3) cannot constitute the basis for awarding any punishment to the petitioner. Learned Counsel has then argued that some of the injured filed claim petitions before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal wherein respondent no.3 has filed the written statement. Learned Counsel has pointed out that in para 24 of the written statement the stand taken is that as a matter of fact the Driver of the Canter was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle who dashed with the bus as a result of which the bus went out of control. Learned Counsel has maintained that in view of the stand taken by respondent no.3, it cannot be concluded by the Enquiry Officer that the petitioner was negligent in driving the bus.