Himachal Pradesh High Court Orders Reinstatement of Driver Wrongfully Terminated
Court Rules Termination Without Inquiry Unjust; Orders Release of Pension and Retiral Benefits
In a significant judgment passed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court, the termination of a driver employed by the Himachal Road Transport Corporation (HRTC) has been quashed. The court found the termination to be unjust as it was carried out without holding a necessary inquiry as mandated by the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965.
The petitioner, Shiv Raj, was removed from service following his conviction under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code due to an accident while driving an HRTC bus. The disciplinary authority had relied on Rule 19 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, which permits termination on conviction, but the court emphasized that this rule requires disciplinary authorities to record specific reasons if an inquiry is to be dispensed with.
Justice Sandeep Sharma, presiding over the case, underscored that mere conviction does not automatically justify termination. The court noted that the disciplinary authority failed to record any reasons for bypassing the inquiry process. The High Court referenced judgments from the Supreme Court, including Pawan Kumar v. Union of India, reinforcing the principle that termination should not be automatic upon conviction and that employees must be given an opportunity to explain their conduct.
The judgment also drew on previous cases, such as Mohinder Singh v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, emphasizing the need for a careful consideration of the nature and gravity of the offense before deciding on termination.
The court has ordered the reinstatement of Shiv Raj, directing HRTC to release his pension and retiral benefits from the date of his wrongful termination. This judgment highlights the judiciary's role in ensuring fair and just employment practices, reinforcing the importance of procedural fairness in disciplinary actions.
Bottom Line:
Service Law - Termination of an employee on the basis of conviction under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC without holding an inquiry under Rule 19 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 is not permissible unless reasons for dispensing with the inquiry are recorded.
Statutory provision(s): Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 Rule 19, Constitution of India Article 311(2) Proviso (a), Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code.
Shiv Raj v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, (Himachal Pradesh) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2784981
