KANSHI RAM S/O SHRI HUKAM CHAND, SARKAGHAT, MANDI Vs. HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant herein prays for quashing and setting aside the penalty of compulsory retirement of the applicant vide Annexures -P/3 and P/6 and for his reinstatement with retrospective effect with all consequential benefits and for directing the respondents to pay the arrears of the suspension allowance of the applicant right from the date of his suspension till reinstatement.

(2.) It is not in dispute that the applicant was departmentally charge -sheeted for driving a bus under the influence of liquor and thereby causing accident amounting to misconduct, dereliction of duty and un -authorisedly taking away the bus from its terminus and in all causing financial loss to the H.R.T.C. to the tune of Rs. 2,21,856/ -.

(3.) The Inquiry Officer held the charge of driving the bus by the applicant under the influence of liquor as partly proved. After the due formalities the disciplinary authority held the applicant guilty of the charges leveled against him and imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement from service with immediate effect vide order Annexure -P/4. The applicant preferred the appeal (Annexure -P/5) assailing the order of the disciplinary authority on various grounds but the said appeal was rejected by the appellate authority vide Annexure -P/6. Hence the applicant has instituted the present original application claiming the aforesaid reliefs on the grounds that the enquiry proceedings were not carried out in accordance with law and the impugned orders have been passed by the authorities in a cryptic manner without assigning any reason and that the grounds taken by him in his appeal were not considered by the appellate authority at all rending the order highly laconic, capricious, arbitrary, slip shod and thus, liable for being quashed. It is also claimed that the punishment is contrary to the stand taken by the respondents before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal wherein it was not their case that the applicant was rash or negligent in driving the vehicle but it was claimed that the accident occurred due to sudden failure of mechanical system and that the applicant should not have been held guilty in view of his acquittal on similar charges by a Court of Law vide Annexure -P/1.