IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA ON THE 7th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.690 of 2008 Between: SHRI JANAK RAJ SON OF SHRI AMIN CHAND, RESIDENT OF AGHLOUR, TEHSIL BANGANA, DISTRICT UNA, H.P. ….PETITIONER. (BY. MR. AJAY SHARMA, SENIOR ADVOCATE, WITH MR. ATHARV SHARMA, ADVOCATE) AND 1. HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, SHIMLA-3, THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, H.R.T.C., RAMPUR, UNA, RAMPUR. ….RESPONDENTS. 3. PRESIDING JUDGE, H.P. LABOUR COURT, SHIMLA. … PROFORMA-RESPONDENT. (MR. B.N. SHARMA, ADVOCATE, FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2) (NONE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3) Whether approved for reporting?1 1 2 This petition coming on for hearing this day, the Court passed the following: J U D G M E N T By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(1) That impugned award Annexure P-7 may kindly be set aside and reference may very kindly be ordered to be answered in positive. (2) That directions may very kindly be given to the respondents to re-engage the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits of pay, seniority, etc.etc. and removal of the petitioner from service vide letter dated 18.1.1995 may also very kindly be quashed and set aside.” 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a conductor in the respondent-Department in the year 1982. On 07.07.1990, the petitioner was charge-sheeted on the charge of issuing less tickets to the bus passengers. As the Disciplinary Authority was not satisfied with the response given to the Article of Charges by the petitioner, an Inquiry Officer was appointed. The Inquiry Officer submitted his Inquiry Report. On the basis of Inquiry Report as well as the reply which was made thereto by the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority imposed major penalty of termination of service upon the petitioner on 18.01.1995. The appeal, which was filed against said order was 3 rejected by the Appellate Authority and so was the fate of the representation which was subsequently filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute and the following reference was made by the appropriate Government to the learned Labour Court for adjudication:- “1.Whether the termination of services of Sh. Janak Raj, Ex-conductor by (1) Regional Manager, Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Rampur Bushehar, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh and (2) Managing Director, Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Shimla w.e.f. 18.1.1995 on the grounds of issuing short tickets to the passengers without affording the reasonable opportunity of his defence/being heard in person in consonance with the principles of natural justice, is legal and justified and whether the above penalty imposed upon the worker attracts the provisions of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 being disproportionate to the alleged offence. What is the effect and to what relief of service benefits including reinstatement, back wages, seniority and amount of compensation, Sh. Janak Raj is entitled?” 2. “ Whether the enquiry conducted by the management against the worker is vitiated, as alleged, if so, to what effect?” 3. This reference was answered by the learned Labour Court in terms of Annexure P-1, dated 10.03.2006, by answering the same against the workman. 4 4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed CWP No.430 of 2006 before this Court, which Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court in terms of Annexure P-6, dated 24.10.2007, by setting aside the Award passed by the learned Labour Court and remanding the matter back to the said Court on the ground that the Award passed by the learned Labour Court was bad in law, as the learned Labour Court had erred in not considering the statement of RW-3, which had vitiated the proceedings. Thereafter, vide Annexure P-7, a fresh Award was passed by learned Labour Court on 08.01.2008 and the reference was again answered against the petitioner by learned Labour Court. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. 6. In the course of hearing of this Writ Petition, this Court on the previous dates directed learned counsel for the respondent- Corporation to produce the record of the disciplinary inquiry which was held against the petitioner by the Corporation. Record has been made available and a perusal thereof demonstrates that the order of termination which has been passed against the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority is per se bad and not sustainable in the eyes of law. The Court is making this observation for the reason that in terms of the record, after the Inquiry Report was submitted by the 5 Inquiry Officer to the Disciplinary Authority, the Disciplinary Authority rather than proceedings in terms of Provisions of Section 15 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 as they existed at the relevant time, acted completely contrary to the same. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to refer to the provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules as they were prevailing at the time when the Inquiry Report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer to the Disciplinary Authority. The Show Cause Notice, which was issued to the petitioner after receipt of the Inquiry Report, is dated 18.10.1993. At the relevant time, the CCS (CCA) Rules as they were prevailing before the amendment carried out in the year 2000, were prevailing. The un-amended Rules, inter alia, provided (Rule 15 (1-A)) that the Disciplinary Authority, where it was not the inquiring authority shall forward or cause to be forwarded a copy of the report of the inquiry to the Government servant who shall be required to submit, if he so desires, his written representation or submission to the Disciplinary Authority within fifteen days, irrespective of whether the report was favourable or not to the Government servant. Section 15 (1-B) further provided that Disciplinary Authority shall consider the representation, if any, submitted by the Government servant before proceeding further in the manner specified in sub-rules (2) to (4). 6 7. Thus, it is evident that in terms of the provisions of Rule 15 (1-A), the Disciplinary Authority was obliged just to forward a copy of the Inquiry Report to the Government servant and seek his response thereto. However, a perusal of the notice which was sent by the Disciplinary Authority alongwith the Inquiry Report, demonstrates that in the said notice it was mentioned by the Disciplinary Authority that after receipt of the Inquiry Report, the Disciplinary Authority had perused the same and it fully agreed with the Inquiry Officer, who had mentioned in the report that the charges against the Government servant stood proved. It further was mentioned in the Show Cause Notice that after perusal of the Inquiry Report and related documents, as the Disciplinary Authority had come to the conclusion that the petitioner was not an efficient worker, therefore, he was not fit to be retained in the Corporation and Show Cause was issued to him to explain as to why his services could not be terminated. The Show Cause Notice which was so issued by the Disciplinary Authority was thus in total violation of the letter and spirit of CCS (CCA) Rules 15 (1-A) and 1-B as they existed at the relevant time. There was no provision in Rule 15 (1-A) that at said stage the Disciplinary Authority could either make up its mind or give its mind on the basis of the report of Inquiry Officer as to what punishment, if any, was likely to be imposed upon the 7 petitioner, yet the Show Cause Notice demonstrates that rather than following the mandate of Rule 15 (1-A), what the Disciplinary Authority did was that it gave its mind as to what it proposed to do on the basis of the Inquiry Report. This act of the Disciplinary Authority, in the considered view of this Court has vitiated everything that took place thereafter, which includes the order of termination of services of the petitioner as also the subsequent orders which were passed by the Appellate Authority etc. on the appeal etc. filed by the petitioner as also the impugned Award. 8. Accordingly, in view of above discussion, this Writ Petition is allowed, as the entire process after the issuance of the Show Cause Notice, post receipt of the Inquiry Report is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The Award in issue which has been passed by learned Tribunal is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the inquiry which was conducted by the Management against the worker indeed was vitiated the findings to the contrary returned by the learned Tribunal are thus bad and not sustainable in the eyes of law. 9. The Award dated 08.01.2008, passed by learned Labour Court in Ref. No.113 of 1999, titled Shri Najak Raj, Ex-conductor Versus The Regional Manager, Himachal Pradesh Transport Corporation & another (Annexure A-7) obviously goes and so is the 8 fate of the termination order of the petitioner dated 18.01.1995, as well as the order passed by the learned Appellate Authority. 10. As the petitioner is now over age for the purpose of re- engagement, therefore, ends of justice would be met in case the disciplinary proceedings are put to a quietus with further direction to the respondent that as the disciplinary proceedings which have been initiated against the petitioner has been set at naught by the Court all consequential benefits including the monitory benefits be conferred upon the petitioner. 11. Petition is disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge November 07, 2022 (Rishi)