The Himachal Pradesh High Court quashed the removal of a long-serving driver from Himachal Road Transport Corporation, holding that automatic termination on criminal conviction without due inquiry violates service rules and principles of natural justice. The Court emphasised that disciplinary authorities must exercise caution and record reasons before dispensing with an inquiry, even under Rule 19 of the CCS (CCA) Rules.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner, a driver with Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Hamirpur, had been serving the department for over twenty-eight years. On 22nd March 2011, while deployed on a bus from Hamirpur to Amritsar, he met with an accident at Jalandhar-Pathankot bypass. An FIR was registered against him under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. Following investigation, the trial court convicted him and sentenced him to imprisonment, which he served from November 2016 to February 2017. Despite the conviction, no disciplinary proceedings were conducted to ascertain misconduct before the Corporation terminated his services on 23rd December 2019 under Rule 19 of the CCS (CCA) Rules.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that Rule 19 requires the authority to record reasons if it is not practicable to conduct an inquiry. He contended that the Corporation bypassed this safeguard and terminated him arbitrarily, depriving him of pension and other retiral benefits despite decades of service.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The counsel appearing for the respondent argued that Rule 19 empowers them to remove a government servant convicted of a criminal offence without conducting an inquiry. Since the petitioner had been convicted under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and served a jail term, the Corporation contended that no further inquiry was required.
Observations of the Court:
The High Court examined Rule 19 of the CCS (CCA) Rules and observed that while it allows authorities to bypass an inquiry in certain cases, it mandates that reasons for such non-conduct of inquiry be recorded in writing. The Court noted that the respondents failed to record any reasons and merely relied on the criminal conviction to terminate the petitioner.
Citing the Apex Court judgment in Pawan Kumar v. Union of India, the bench held that “mere suppression of material/false information regardless of conviction or acquittal does not entitle an employer to discharge or terminate the employee automatically.” The Court also referred to the coordinate Bench’s decision in Mohinder Singh v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, emphasizing that authorities must consider the gravity of the offence, impact on service, and suitability of the employee before imposing penalty, even under Rule 19.
The bench observed that disciplinary proceedings initiated under Rule 14 had been dropped without resolution, leaving no justification for invoking Rule 19. Additionally, the appellate and review authorities failed to examine the grounds of the petitioner’s appeal and review petition, dismissing them mechanically.
The decision of the Court:
The High Court allowed the petition, quashing the termination order dated 23rd December 2019 and the review dismissal dated 15th November 2021. The Court directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with effect from 23rd December 2019 and release all retiral benefits and pension, if eligible. The petition was disposed of along with pending applications.
Case Title: Shiv Raj Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Anr.
Case No.: CWP No.4573 of 2022
Coram: Justice Sandeep Sharma
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Sunil Mohan Goel (Senior Advocate), Vipul Sharda
Advocate for Respondent: Advs. Vipul Rajput
Picture Source :
