Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 898 (HP)

Bhagmal Dhirta v. H. P. State Forest Corporation

2010-06-24

SURJIT SINGH

body2010
JUDGEMENT Surjit Singh, Judge(oral) Petitioner is aggrieved by the order, dated 9.4.2010, Annexure P-3, by which he has been visited with the penalty of compulsory retirement from the post of Junior Scale Stenographer, which he was holding, in H.P. Forest Corporation-respondent No.1, herein, and also by the Inquiry Report, Annexure P-8, whereby he was found guilty of all the three Articles of Charge that was framed against him. 2. Petitioner was employed as Junior Scale Stenographer with respondent No.1. In the year 2006, he was posed at Rampur in the office of Divisional Manager. Often, he overstayed his sanctioned leave. Despite warnings he did not mend his ways. Also, he would attend the office after consuming liquor. Once he indulged in rowdyism. This happened on 9.10.2006, when he came to the office heavily drunk. He was required by his immediate superior officer to leave the office. Instead of leaving the office, he went to the DM Office, where Office Manager was also present and created ruckus. He was sought to be got medically examined, but he put physical resistance and could only be examined with the help of police late in the evening at 4.30. Medical examination reveled that he was drunk, though not intoxicated. He was charge-sheeted. Inquiry was conducted. Inquiry Officer found him guilty and submitted report, Annexure P-8. Copy of the Inquiry Report was supplied to the petitioner and he was afforded an opportunity to make representation against the findings of Inquiry Officer. He submitted his representation. inally, the Punishing Authority passed order, Annexure P-3, compulsorily retiring him from service. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was not allowed to adduce evidence to controvert the evidence of Presenting side and also the documents on which reliance has been placed by the Inquiry Officer had not been proved, according to known principles of law of evidence and practice of adducing evidence. Another submission made by him is that bye-laws of the Corporation (respondent No.1) do not provide for the imposition of penalty of compulsory retirement. 5. Another submission made by him is that bye-laws of the Corporation (respondent No.1) do not provide for the imposition of penalty of compulsory retirement. 5. From a letter addressed to Inquiry Officer by Divisional Manager, Rampur Division, copy Annexure P-6, it is made out that petitioner wanted to examine two witnesses, who were employed in Rampur Division, but the Divisional Manager, Incharge of Rampur Division, refused to send the witnesses to give evidence before Inquiry Officer at Shimla, on the ground that expenses of the witnesses were required to be deposited by the petitioner. This order was illegal on the face of it. Bye-laws of respondent-Corporation, governing and regulating the service conditions, disciplinary action, travelling allowance and several other matters, provide, vide Chapter VIII, that the employees shall be governed by Travelling Allowance Rules applicable to Himachal Pradesh Government servants in the matter of rates and rules for grant of TA. 6. SR 154 of Fundamental and Supplementary Rules Part-II (TA Rules), which governs Himachal Pradesh Government servants, clearly provides that any government servant summoned as a witness in a departmental inquiry, held by a properly constituted authority, to give evidence of facts noticed by him, in his capacity as a government servant, shall be paid travelling allowance and subsistence allowance by the government, i.e. to say, the employer of the government servant. 7. Now, when the aforesaid TA Rules are applicable to the employees of the respondent-Corporation also, travelling allowance and subsistence allowance for the witnesses summoned by the petitioner, in his defence, were required to be defrayed by respondent No.1 and petitioner’s request for examining them could not have been turned down on the plea that unless he deposited money equivalent to their travelling allowance and subsistence allowance, they would not be allowed to leave the station for giving evidence. 8. Also, I find from a reading of Chapter-VI of bye-laws, pertaining to conduct, discipline and appeals, that compulsory retirement is not included in the penalties, which may be imposed. Penalties are specified in para 6.17 of Chapter VI of the Bye-laws. Thus, the penalty is illegal. 9. In view of the above stated position, writ petition is allowed. Inquiry Report, Annexure P-8, is quashed. Consequently, order of penalty, Annexure P-3, is also quashed. Penalties are specified in para 6.17 of Chapter VI of the Bye-laws. Thus, the penalty is illegal. 9. In view of the above stated position, writ petition is allowed. Inquiry Report, Annexure P-8, is quashed. Consequently, order of penalty, Annexure P-3, is also quashed. However, respondent-Corporation, if so desired, shall be at liberty to remit the inquiry to Inquiry Officer, with a direction to proceed with the same, beyond the stage where the evidence of the presenting side was closed and to conclude it after affording an opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence, in defence, and then to take further action in the matter. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Pending applications also stand disposed of, as having become infructuous.