Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 721 (HP)

SOHAN LAL v. HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION

2010-04-09

RAJIV SHARMA

body2010
JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, J.-Material facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Driver in the respondent-Corporation in the year 1985. He was sanctioned earned leave with effect from 13.5.1991 to 31.5.1991 by the Deputy Divisional Manager, H.R.T.C., Shimla (Local Unit). He was required to resume his duties on 1.6.1991. He did not resume his duties. Charge sheet was issued to him under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 on 30th July, 1992. Copy of the same was sent to him on his home address by way of registered post. He was transferred to Rohru Unit vide order dated 8.1.1993. He was relieved on 15.1.1993. He was directed to report at Rohru vide telegram dated 20.5.1993. In other words, he remained absent from duty for a period of about six years. He made confessional statement admitting the charges on 9th July, 1997. Thereafter memorandum was issued to him on 1.11.1997 whereby he was called upon to file reply within a period of 15 days. He filed reply on 24.11.1997. He took the defence that he was made to sign the confessional statement by verbal assurance that his case will be amicably settled in his favour. Notice was issued to him on 22nd January, 1998 to appear before the Divisional Manager for personal hearing on 27.1.1998. He was removed from service vide office order dated 22.4.1998 (Annexure A-1). 2. Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate appearing vice Mr. K.D. Shreedhar on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently argued that the issuance of Annexure A-1, dated 22.4.1998 is illegal, arbitrary, thus violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He then contended that the confessional statement, dated 9.7.1997 was not voluntary in nature. He lastly contended that there is also violation of the principles of natural justice. Mr. Adarsh Sharma has supported the issuance of Annexure A-1, dated 22.4.1998. According to him, the petitioner was habitual absentee and has remained absent unauthorisedly for a period of about six years. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 4. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner vide charge-sheet dated 30.7.1992. Copy of the charge-sheet was sent to the petitioner at his home address by way of registered post. 5. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 4. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner vide charge-sheet dated 30.7.1992. Copy of the charge-sheet was sent to the petitioner at his home address by way of registered post. 5. He remained absent with effect from 1st June, 1991 for a period of six years. He made confessional statement on 9.7.1997. Mr. Gupta, during the course of hearing argued that his client has not signed the confessional statement. It cannot be believed. It was not his defence when he filed reply to the show cause notice on 24.11.1997. He has admitted that he has signed the confessional statement. Mr. Gupta then argued that despite the petitioner’s confessional statement, dated 9.7.1997, regular inquiry was required to be completed. 6. It is settled law by now that once the charges are admitted, it is not necessary to continue the disciplinary proceedings in view of Section 58 of the Evidence Act, 1872. In a similar case where an employee has remained absent unauthorisedly and thereafter has admitted the charges, their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chairman & Managing Director, V.S.P. and Others versus Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu, (2008) 5 SCC 569 have held that detailed inquiry was not required to be held. Their Lordships have held as under (paras 16, 18 and 19):- “Indisputably, the respondent was a habitual absentee. He in his explanation, in answer to the charge-sheet pleaded guilty admitting the charges. In terms of Section 58 of the Evidence Act, charges having been admitted were not required to be proved. It was on that premise that the enquiry proceeding was closed. Before the enquiry officer, he did not submit the explanation of his mother being ill. He, despite opportunities granted to report to duty, did not do it. He failed to explain even his prior conduct. It was observed that judicial admissions can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. A subsequent explanation before another authority, which had not been pleaded in the departmental proceedings, cannot by itself be a ground to hold that the principles of natural justice had not been complied with in the disciplinary proceedings.” 7. It was observed that judicial admissions can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. A subsequent explanation before another authority, which had not been pleaded in the departmental proceedings, cannot by itself be a ground to hold that the principles of natural justice had not been complied with in the disciplinary proceedings.” 7. In this case also, petitioner has remained absent for a period of six years and has not joined the duties despite reminders issued to him by way of telegram dated 20.5.1993 and also on the basis of publication of notice in the daily edition of Punjab Kesri, dated 21.6.1997, issued by the Deputy Divisional Manager directing him to join his duties within 15 days. It is only after the publication of this notice on 21.6.1997, he made confessional statement admitting the charges on 9.7.1997. There is no violation of the principles of natural justice as argued by Mr. D.P. Gupta. 8. Consequently, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.