PADAM PRASAD SHARMA Vs. S N T

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution calls into question the constitutional validity of an order of dismissal passed against a temporary employee of the Sikkim Nationalised Transport, in the light of the provision of Art. 311. Incidentally, it is also brought out in this petition that though the Supreme Court and the High Courts have time and again explained and emphasised the true scope and meaning of this constitutional provison, yet the administrative authorities have failed to grasp its full impact. No doubt the constitutional protection has become available to the Government servants in Sikkim, only after its merger in 1975, as earlier to that the "pleasure of the Chogyal" was not tolerant of any (legal) limitations, or even restraining influences, yet sufficient time has elapsed for the administrative authorities to realise and appreciate the constitutional obligations imposed by Art. 311, and the processes involved in case an order of dismissal or removal within the meaning of Art. 311(2) is to be passed against a Government servant.

(2.) Padam Prasad Sharma, a driver employed in the Sikkim Nationalised Transport, was dismissed from service by an Order dated 13th of June, 1979 passed by its General Manager. Shorn of unnecessary and superfluous details and omitting the allegations not strictly relevant for the decision of the petition, the resume of facts assumes the following picture. The petitioner joined as a temporary driver on 'no work no pay' basis as reflected in his appointment order dated 22nd of February, 1969, and he was allowed usual pay and allowance admissible to such employees. With some modifications brought about by subsequent Government orders in the status of the petitioner and other such drivers, the petitioner continued to serve till the impugned order was passed against him on 13th June, 1979 and his long service career was brought to a sudden and unexpected close. The incident which led to this order has been described in great detail in the petition but it would suffice to mention that on 9th January, 1979, the petitioner was driving a truck from Siliguri to Rangpo when on the way he was stopped by a Motor Vehicle Inspector of the West Bengal Transport Department and was required to produce his driving licence and other documents of the vehicle. At the relevant time he was passing through the area of Jalpaiguri District and the Motor Vehicle Inspector of the West Bengal Transport Department was clothed with the necessary authority to demand the documents. It appears that Padam Prasad could not satisfy the checking staff and was consequently challaned for driving the vehicle in contravention of S. 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He was directed to appear in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jalpaiguri, and in this connection one copy of the challan form was handed over to the petitioner, but in spite of this direction, either intentionally or through oversight, he failed to put in appearance in the concerned Court on the, day when his case was to be taken up with the result that non-bailable warrants for his arrest were issued. In pursuance of these warrants the petitioner was arrested and was produced before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 29th May, 1979. Probably, as the vehicle belonging to the Sikkim Nationalised Transport was involved in these proceedings, respondent 4, who was posted as a Transport Officer at Siliguri Office, was also directed to appear in the Court, in defence of the department and to assist the petitioner. Mr. P. K. Pradhan consequently accompanied the petitioner in a separate jeep. It is not in dispute that the petitioner pleaded guilty and was required to pay a fine of Rs. 75/- which was in fact paid on that very day. The case of the petitioner is that he had been sent to the lock-up before the fine was paid and at that time he had handed over a sum of Rs. 500/- to respondent 4 for making payment of the fine which may be imposed on him. He has asserted that respondent 4 told him that a fine of Rs. 300/- was paid on his behalf. After he was released he learnt that no fine had been paid and that in fact only a fine of Rs. 75/- was imposed. The petitioner demanded a receipt for the payment of fine from respondent 4 and also the balance. This demand led to some altercation between the petitioner and respondent 4 but the situation was saved by Mr. Pradhan's departure from the spot. Subsequently, the petitioner complained before the Deputy General Manager (Operation) about the conduct of respondent 4, who assured him that the matter would be settled to his satisfaction. However, to the petitioner's utter shock and dismay he suddenly came to know on 13th June, 1979 that his services had been terminated with immediate effect though all along he had been performing his duties to the satiffaction of all concerned. On gaining the information about his dismissal, the petitioner at first made efforts to obtain a copy of the order but when he failed in this quest he filed a representation before the General Manager on 16th June, 1979 making a grievance of the action taken against him on the ground that he had not been given any opportunity to prove his innocence. This representation was disposed of by the S.N.T. Board and the order of the Board rejecting his representation was conveyed to the petitioner by the General Manager through letter dated 31st July, 1979. Having failed to get relief from the department the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the order of his dismissal and has also prayed for the consequential reliefs arising out of order of reinstatement if passed.

(3.) Besides impleading the Sikkim Nationalised Transport, its General Manager and the Chairman, the petitioner has also included Mr. P. K. Pradhan, Transport Officer at Siliguri and the Chief Secretary, State of Sikkim in the array of the respondents. All these respondents have contested the petition through the affidavit of Mrs. Tshering Dolma, Administrative Officer of the Sikkim Nationalised Transport. In the reply, the appointment of the petitioner as a driver on 'no work no pay' basis on 22nd February, 1969 has been admitted and it has also been accepted that his services had been terminated by order dated 13th June, 1979. It was, however, brought out that between 1973 and 1978 the petitioner had been punished nine times for negligence of duty on various occasions, and as such, a challenge was passed to the allegation that his service had been satisfactory. Reliance was placed on certain Government orders, to clothe respondent 2 with the power to pass the order of respondent's dismissal. The allegations that there had been a violation of Arts. 14, 19 and 311 (2) were stoutly resisted and it was sought to establish that no stigma was cast on the petitioner by the impugned order and no evil consequences arose out of that order.