JAGTAR SINGH Vs. H.R.T.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the only legal question arising for determination is whether before any penalty is imposed on a Government servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction in a criminal charge, a delinquent employee is entitled to be heard or not.

(2.) The factual matrix of this case is in a narrow compass. The applicant is a driver and while driving Bus No. 2609 on February 9, 1982 he hit a cyclist who succumbed to his injuries on February 17, 1982. After committing this accident the applicant was challaned under sections 304 -A & 279, I P.C. and was convicted by the Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Una on December 1, 1983 and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months besides fine of Rs. 500. The applicant remained unsuccessful in the appeal against his conviction and subsequently vide order Annexure -PA dated June 14, 1986 he was removed from service by respondent No 2 under Rule 19 (2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter called 1965 Rules). He filed an appeal against removal from service but vide order Annexure -PB dated September 21, 1987 he was informed that the appropriate authority had rejected his appeal. In this application the main grievance of the applicant is that the extreme penalty of removal from service has been imposed on bin) by the respondents without granting him an opportunity to explain his case and thus the impugned orders Annexures PA and PB are illegal and are required to be quashed.

(3.) The rival contention of the respondents as is apparent from their reply dated March 8, 1988 is that the conduct of the applicant was such which has direct bearing on the duties assigned to him and hence his removal from service was in -order and in accordance with the provisions of 1965 Rules and that no enquiry was called for because a Competent Court of law had convicted him in a criminal case.