Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajinder Singh S/O Ajit Singh Resident ... vs The High Court Of Punjab And Haryana on 13 January, 2010
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 2128 of 1995 (O/M).
Date of Decision : January 13, 2010.
Rajinder Singh s/o Ajit Singh resident of village Saidpur, P.O. Dera Bassi,
District Patiala
...... Petitioner .
Versus.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh, through its Registrar
..... Respondent .
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH.
Present:- Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Senior Advocate, with,
Mr. Dheeraj Jain and Mr. Davesh Moudgil, Advocates,
for the petitioner .
Mr. Anand Chhibbar, Advocate,
for respondent .
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL).
The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 11.10.1994 (Annexure-P-7), passed by respondent, whereby the petitioner had been dismissed from service and for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent to treat the petitioner in continuous service of the Court with all consequential relief.
Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as an officiating Driver, vide letter dated 21.03.1991 (Annexure-P-1). Paras 2, 3, and 4 of the appointment letter reads as follow :-
"2. You have been appointed as an Offg. Driver in the scale of Rs. 1025-2100 + Rs. 300 as special pay plus such allowances as may be admissible from time to time, for a period of three months to start with.C.W.P. No. 2128 of 1995 (O/M). -2-
3. It should be clearly understood that the appointment is purely on a temporary basis. It is subject to the condition that your services may be terminated at any time without notice but in case you want to leave service, you must give one month's notice or deposit one month's salary and allowance in lieu thereof.
4. That your appointment and other conditions of service will be regulated by the High Court Establishment (Appointments and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1973, as amended from time to time."
The petitioner was continuing as such, when a note dated 30.11.1993 was sent to the Registrar (General) of respondent by the Secretary of the Judge with whom the petitioner was posted as a Driver, which reads as follow :-
"Hon'ble Mr. Justice Harphul Singh Brar has desired that Shri Rajinder Singh, Driver to his Lordship may be removed immediately as it has been observed quite often that he was drunk at the time of driving the car and in spite of advising him on a number of occasions not to indulge into such activities, he has not improved. In his place, a good Driver may be provided to his Lordship."
On the basis of the observations made by the Judge, Chief Justice passed order dated 08.12.1993 (Annexure-P-2), whereby the petitioner was placed under suspension. The petitioner was served with the chargesheet dated 08.12.1993 (Annexure-P-2). The article of charges reads as follow :-
"You, Shri Rajinder Singh, Driver (under suspension) are guilty of the following charges :-
That you, while posted as Driver with Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.S. Brar, were not performing your duties satisfactorily and quite often you were in a drunken condition at the time of driving the car and in spite of advising you on a number of occasions not to indulge into such activities, you have not improved yourself. As such you have C.W.P. No. 2128 of 1995 (O/M). -3- committed acts of gross indiscipline, insubordination, mis- conduct and dereliction in the performance of your duties unbecoming of a Government servant.
Sd/- Addl. Registrar (Admn.)."
In response to article of charges, reply was submitted by the petitioner, denying the allegations made against him. Finding reply submitted by the petitioner not satisfactory, a regular departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer conducted an inquiry and submitted his report. Vide letter dated 26.04.1994 (Annexure-P-5), the copy of the inquiry report was sent to the petitioner to enable him to make a representation, if any, within a period of 15 days from the date of communication. The petitioner submitted his representation dated 05.05.1994 (Annexure-P-6). On consideration of the representation of the petitioner, he was given an opportunity to appear personally before the Chief Justice, vide order dated 24.09.1994. The petitioner appeared before the Chief Justice on 06.10.1994, when following order was passed :-
"Heard Mr. Rajinder Singh. Nothing to add."
Thereafter, the Chief Justice, vide his detailed order dated 11.10.1994 (Annexure-P-7) observed as under :-
"I have heard the employee in person and have gone through the record of the case. The charge against the employee is very serious. The Hon'ble Judge himself had observed the employee in a drunken condition and there was no improvement in his behaviour as is evident from the note of Secretary of Hon'ble H.S. Brar, J. To allow such a person to continue on the post of driver is to increase risk to the life of the occupant of the car. The official has not been able to dislodge the findings of Enquiry Officer on this aspect. I accept the findings and report of the Enquiry Officer. I consequently dismiss him from service with immediate effect."C.W.P. No. 2128 of 1995 (O/M). -4-
In accordance with the above order, the petitioner was dismissed from service, vide order dated 11.10.1994 (Annexure-P-7). It is this order, which is under challenge in the present writ petition.
Counsel for the petitioner contends that the chargesheet itself is very vague and devoid of any details as there is no date, time or place mentioned, when the petitioner was found in a drunken condition by the Judge. He contends that the report of the Enquiry Officer is based on no evidence and, therefore, the same cannot be sustained. The evidence, which has been produced by respondent against the petitioner is merely a statement of the Secretary of the Judge, who had merely on instructions of the Judge, conveyed a note dated 30.11.1993. There is no direct evidence, which would substantiate the allegations against the petitioner. Even in the cross- examination, the Secretary of the Judge, who is the sole witness, when examined by the Presenting Officer during the inquiry proceedings, had admitted that personally he has never seen the petitioner in a drunken condition at the residence of the Judge. He contends that the petitioner is an Amritdhari Sikh and, therefore, the petitioner does not use any intoxicant as the same is prohibited for an Amritdhari Sikh. As a matter of fact, the Judge was annoyed with the petitioner due to some other reason and, therefore, the report was made against the petitioner . He on this basis submits that since the inquiry report cannot be sustained, therefore, the consequential order passed by respondent dismissing the petitioner from service, could not be sustained. He challenged the show cause notice dated 26.04.1994 (Annexure-P-5), on the ground that the proposed punishment was not mentioned therein. He on the basis of the above submissions prays for setting aside of the order impugned herein.
C.W.P. No. 2128 of 1995 (O/M). -5-
On the other hand, counsel for respondent relying upon the note of the Secretary dated 30.11.1993, which was conveyed as per instructions given by the Judge as also the observations of the Chief Justice in his order dated 11.10.1994 prays for dismissal of the present writ petition. He contends that due opportunity was given to the petitioner by the Enquiry Officer, but no evidence was produced by the petitioner before the Enquiry Officer. He had even himself not appeared before the Enquiry Officer to contradict the allegations made against him. The assertion of counsel for the petitioner with regard to the petitioner being a Amritdhari Sikh is bald assertion as there is neither any statement nor any other evidence, which would substantiate the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner was a Amritdhari Sikh. As regards contention with regard to non-mentioning of the proposed punishment against the petitioner, while supplying him a copy of Enquiry Officer, he submits that it was not the requirement of law that the proposed punishment be also incorporated therein. He contends that the allegations drawn by the Enquiry Officer is based upon the evidence of the Secretary to the Judge, who had stated before the Enquiry Officer that he had sent the note dated 30.11.1993 on instructions of the Judge. Nothing has been brought in cross- examination, which would suggest that note dated 30.11.1993 was sent by the Secretary without instructions of the judge.
As regards allegation that the note dated 30.11.1993 was got sent by the Judge, because he was annoyed with the petitioner due to some other reason, the same cannot be accepted as no evidence had come forth during the inquiry proceedings or in the reply, which had been submitted by the petitioner, which would show that it was not because of the petitioner being in a drunken condition, but for some other reason. He on this basis prays for dismissal of the present writ petition.
C.W.P. No. 2128 of 1995 (O/M). -6-
I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.
The departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on the basis of a note dated 30.11.1993 prepared by the Secretary on instructions of the Judge with whom the petitioner was attached as a Driver of his car. The note dated 30.11.1993 clearly indicates that the petitioner was in a drunken condition at the time of driving the car. It was not the only occasion, but on earlier occasions also, he had been found in a drunken state and despite having been advised on a number of occasions not to indulge in such like activities, there had been no improvement in his conduct. A regular departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner, in which the petitioner participated. There is no assertion on the part of the petitioner that there was any irregularity in the conduct of inquiry. The only challenge, which has been put forth by counsel for the petitioner to the inquiry report is that it is based on no evidence. This assertion of counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted as the Secretary of the Judge had appeared as a witness and had made a statement in support of the note dated 30.11.1993 sent by him, which was prepared and sent on instructions of the Judge. The Secretary, while appearing as a witness had stated that the said note was seen by the Judge before it was sent to the Registrar (General). After handing over the said note to the Registrar (General), the Secretary had reported back to the Judge. He had proved the original note during the inquiry proceedings. It is true that during the cross-examination of the Secretary, he had stated that he had never seen the driver in a drunken condition at the residence of the Judge, but the Secretary always used to remain with the Judge or he travels with the Judge on each and every occasion.
C.W.P. No. 2128 of 1995 (O/M). -7-
As regards the assertion of counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was a Amritdhari Sikh, therefore, the question of use of intoxicant by the petitioner does not arise is concerned, suffice to say that there is no evidence on the record, which would prove this assertion of the petitioner. The petitioner had neither appeared himself as a witness before the Enquiry Officer during the departmental inquiry nor had he produced any other evidence before the Enquiry Officer. In the absence of any evidence to this effect, mere assertion of the petitioner in response to his representation to the departmental inquiry, cannot be accepted.
No statutory rule had been brought to the notice of the Court, which would mandate the mentioning of the proposed punishment alongwith the communication, which was sent to the delinquent employee to respond back to the inquiry report, which had come against him. The chargesheet itself is clear, as it is stated there that it is proposed to take action against the petitioner under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1979, read with Rule 35 (1) of the High Court Establishment (Appointments and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1973. In any case, no prejudice had been caused to the petitioner by non-mentioning of punishment against the petitioner. A copy of the inquiry report was sent to the petitioner enabling him to make a representation, if any, against the inquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer. As a matter of fact, the petitioner had submitted a detailed representation dated 05.05.1994 (Annexure-P-6). There being no prejudice caused to the petitioner in any manner as the petitioner had been given ample opportunities to explain his conduct firstly in reply to chargesheet, then during the inquiry proceedings after that when he filed representation against the findings given by the Enquiry Officer in his report, and thereafter, personal hearing was given by the Chief Justice. There is nothing on the C.W.P. No. 2128 of 1995 (O/M). -8- record, which would suggest that the order of dismissal passed against the petitioner was not in accordance with law or the same was in violation of any statutory rule.
The petitioner, who was attached as a Driver with the Judge, was required to maintain highest standard of personal restrain and discipline. Any person driving a vehicle, what to say a Driver of a Judge, is mandated under the law not to drive a vehicle in drunken state. A driver, who is in a drunken condition would not only be a risk to his own life and commuters on the road, but also to the life of occupants of the car, who are travelling with him. It was not an isolated occasion, as is apparent from the note dated 30.11.1993 that the petitioner was in a drunken condition but had on earlier occasions also indulged in such like acts and despite having been advised on a number of occasions, did not desist nor did he improve in his conduct. Nothing has come on record, which would suggest that there was any other reason either for the Secretary of the Judge or the Judge himself to give a note against the petitioner or the same was not with a bonafide intention. There is no reason to dis-believe the statement of the Secretary of the Judge and, therefore, it cannot be said that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer is based on no evidence.
Finding no merit in the present petition, the same stands dismissed.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE January 13, 2010.
sjks.
Whether referred to the Reporter : Yes.