Kali Dass vs HRTC

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 28.05.2012 (Annexure A-3), passed by the Managing Director, Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Shimla, H.P., the relevant portion whereof reads as under:-

“Now therefore, the undersigned, in exercise of power vested in him under the CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling in this behalf, after careful consideration of the case the undersigned has come to the conclusion that misconduct of petitioner by way of tempering with record is serious. The penalty was imposed after following proper procedure by issuing show cause notice and there is no reason to interfere with the order of penalty passed by the competent authority vide office order No.DM(N)1-2418-E (DVR) Kali Dass/94-Disp-16725-26 dated 19.12.1994 and accordingly, above order is upheld.”

Earlier an order was passed against the petitioner by the Managing Director, HRTC, copy whereof is appended with the present petition as Annexure A-1. In terms of the record, this order is dated 19/20th December, 1994. The same was passed by the Divisional Manager, HRTC Shimla. As per this order, the penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings originating from show-cause notice dated 14.10.1994. This order was assailed by the petitioner before this Court in terms of CWP(T) 11452 of 2008. Vide judgment dated 22.12.2010, passed in the said case, titled as\ Kali Dass vs. HRTC, this Court set aside the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority; though, the date whereof is wrongly mentioned as 22.02.1995, in the order passed by the Court, qua which, there is no dispute between the parties. The direction given by the Court while quashing the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority was that respondents were granted liberty to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. Pursuant to this liberty granted by the Court, the Managing Director has now passed the impugned order dated 28.05.2012 (Annexure A-3). I have already quoted the relevant portion of the order under challenge in the above part of the judgment.

The Managing Director, in terms of the impugned order, while coming to the conclusion that the misconduct of the petitioner stood proved, ordered that as the penalty was imposed after following proper procedure, by issuance show cause notice, there was no reason to interfere with the order of penalty passed by the Managing Director dated 19.12.1994 and thereafter, it went on to uphold the order.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after carefully gone through the pleadings as well as the documents appended therewith, this Court is of the considered views that the order passed by the Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation is perverse and the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

When this Court in the earlier order passed by it in CWP(T) No. 11452 of 2008, quashed the order passed by the Managing Director dated 19/20th December, 1994, the Authority, in terms of the liberty granted by the Court was required to proceed with the matter in accordance with law, taking care of the infirmity pointed out by this Court, in the proceedings, in the order and thereafter, it was to pass a fresh order by applying its independent mind on the material available before it. However, rather than doing so, the Managing Director under some illusion that he had been called by the Court to go into the correctness of the earlier order passed the Disciplinary Authority, went on to pass order (Annexure A-3) which order is not as per the letter and spirit of the order passed by this Court in terms of Annexure A-3. When the earlier order passed by the Disciplinary Authority was quashed by the Court, there was no occasion for the Managing Director to have had upheld the same as has been done in terms of the impugned order.

Accordingly, on this count, this petition succeeds and order dated 28.05.2012 (Annexure A-3) passed by Managing Director is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed that in case they do so intend, then they may proceed with the matter in terms of the liberty granted by this Court as per its earlier order and but natural as it was the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, which was set aside, fresh order, if any, has to be passed by the Disciplinary Authority and not by the authority superior to him.

With these observations, the present petition stand disposed of, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

It is made clear that in case the respondents intend to proceed in the matter in terms of the liberty granted by the Court in its earlier order, then needful be done by initiating the process within a period of two months from today, otherwise it will be deemed that they do not intend to take any action against the petitioner.