BABU RAM Vs. H.R.T.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

(2.) It is not in dispute that Petitioner was employed as a Conductor with the Respondent-Corporation. Certain disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. This fact is also not in dispute. Vide memorandum dated 12.10.1999 (Annexure A-1), Petitioner was asked to file his response to the charges levelled against him. It is the allegation of the Petitioner that during the course of inquiry, he was coerced to admit his guilt and confess to the charges in writing. This fact is seriously disputed by the Respondents. My attention has been invited to the observations made by the Managing Director while passing order dated 9.4.2002 (Annexure A-5) to this effect. I shall deal with the same hereinafter later.

(3.) The Disciplinary Authority, on the basis of confession made by the Petitioner imposed the penalty of stoppage of annual increment of pay with cumulative effect. This is evident from office order dated 13.6.2000 (Annexure A-2). The charge against the Petitioner of having misappropriated public money was found to have been proved on the basis of his admission. The Revisional Authority was not satisfied with the disciplinary action taken by the authority. Consequently, show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner, asking him to respond to imposition of higher penalty (major penalty). Undisputedly, Petitioner responded to the same by taking the plea that he had not committed any misconduct inasmuch as the passengers in question had actually misplaced the tickets worth Rs. 300/- and that there was no attempt on his part to misappropriate the said amount. Petitioner also took the plea that Inquiry Officer had compelled him to admit his guilt and confess to the charges levelled against him. By taking into account the entire attending circumstances and the material placed on record, the Revisional Authority in terms of order dated 4.11.2000 (Annexure A-4) imposed penalty of compulsory retirement from service. Aggrieved of the same, Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, who reduced the penalty of compulsory retirement and imposed the penalty of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect in terms of order dated 9.4.2002 (Annexure A-5). A corrigendum to this order was also issued on 16.5.2002, whereby the period intervening from the date of compulsory retirement to the date of rejoining was ordered to be treated as dies non. However, it was clarified that this period, for the purpose of pension and gratuity would not amount to break in service. Thus, it is the grievance of the Petitioner that for the said period he ought to have been accorded monetary benefits including wages.