Gian Singh vs The State of Himachal Pradesh etc.

R.S. Pathak, C.J.—The Petitioner is a driver employed in the Himachal Government Transport. He has been removed from service by an order dated May 16, 1972. By this writ petition he challenges the validity of that order.

The Petitioner was assigned to drive a motor vehicle No. HIL 3961 from Simla to Sarahan on September 4, 1970. He reached Sarahan on the evening of that day. At the end of the journey the Petitioner parked the motor vehicle near a hospital and, he says, he-kept the ignition key of the vehicle with himself and left for his place of rest. The motor vehicle was scheduled to leave next morning at 7 O''clock on the return journey for Simla. One Keshav Ram had accompanied the Petitioner in the motor vehicle as conductor-cum-cleaner. The Petitioner alleges that on the morning of September 5, 1970, a little before 7 O''clock, he found that the motor vehicle, with Keshav Ram at the wheel, had started leaving the place. He pursued the motor vehicle but before he could catch up with it, it met with an accident near the Indo-Tibetan Border Police Centre, Sarahan, and Keshav Ram was killed in the accident.

On September 30, 1970, the Petitioner was informed that an enquiry under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, was proposed against him. The Petitioner was charged with having committed dereliction of duty by permitting Keshav Ram to drive the motor vehicle on September 5, 1970, resulting in a fatal accident near Gharat on the Sarahan Road. The Petitioner says that he asked for copies of the statements of witnesses and of the documents intended to be relied on against him but no action was taken by the authorities on that request. The Petitioner then submitted his statement denying the charges. Shri V.P. Sabharwal, Statistical Officer, Himachal Government Transport, Simla was appointed to conduct the enquiry. He completed the enquiry and drew up an enquiry report dated December 28, 1971. Agreeing with the findings in that report, the Commissioner of Transport served notice on the Petitioner to show cause why he should not be removed from service. The Petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the notice. On May 16, 1972, the Commissioner of Transport made an order removing the Petitioner from service.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has taken me through the enquiry report and he submits that on the material mentioned therein and having regard to the character of the findings there was no case for making the impugned order. It appears from the perusal of the enquiry report that the Enquiry Officer did not come to any positive finding that the Petitioner was in fact guilty of dereliction of duty and had actually permitted Keshav Ram to drive the motor vehicle from Sarahan on the morning of September 5, 1970. All that the Enquiry Officer has observed towards the end is:

As such dereliction of duty on the part of the driver cannot be completely ruled out although there is also no overwhelming evidence to conclusively prove that.

Apparently, the Enquiry Officer was of the belief that there was a possibility of the Petitioner being guilty of dereliction of duty. There is no definite finding that the Petitioner was in fact guilty of dereliction of duty. It is this finding with which the Commissioner of Transport agreed. The finding is weak and inconclusive; it cannot serve in law as the basis for taking action against the Petitioner.

When it is proposed to take action against a Government servant for dereliction of duty, the penalty for which is dismissal or removal, it is of the utmost importance that the mind of the Enquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority should be applied with scrupulous regard to the material on the record and that it should be followed by a clear and definite finding. A halting and inconclusive finding serves no purpose at all. It is I meaningless.

Besides the weak and defective nature of the finding, it is also evident from the contents of the enquiry report that the report is vitiated by material contradictions. On the question whether the Petitioner had allowed Keshav Ram to drive the vehicle, the Enquiry Officer placed considerable emphasis on the testimony of Kanshi Ram that on September 4, 1970, he had travelled in the bus from Jeori to Sarahan when the Petitioner had driven the motor vehicle upto Block ''B'' and thereafter the Petitioner handed over the motor vehicle to Keshav Ram telling him that he would meet him at Gharat next morning. The implication of that testimony was that the Petitioner had told Keshav Ram that the latter could drive the motor vehicle from Sarahan to Gharat, from which place the driving would be taken over by the Petitioner. Now in view of the Petitioner''s case that the ignition key had remained all along with him, it was necessary to determine conclusively whether in point of fact the Petitioner had handed over the ignition key to Keshav Ram for driving the motor vehicle from Sarahan to Gharat. On that crucial point there is no finding by the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer has contended himself with the observation:

As regards driver''s plea of having the ignition keys with him, it cannot be said as to whether he had those throughout until the accident or he got hold of those at some point of time after the accident.

It is evident that the findings in the enquiry report cannot sustain an order of penalty against the Petitioner.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner points out that the Enquiry Officer has also relied on certain statements recorded by the Commandant, Indo-Tibetan Border Police, and the reports of the Accident Enquiry Committee and those records, he says, were never put to the Petitioner so as to afford him an opportunity of having his say in regard to their contents. In the view of that I have already taken it is not necessary to give any opinion on that contention.

The writ petition is allowed, and the order dated May 16, 1972 removing the Petitioner from service is quashed. In the circumstances there is no order as to costs.