Gurpreet Singh Thind v. State Of Punjab And Others
! !"#$#%& !"!'(!)* +,
& - ./0 00 ! "
# # $$ 00 ,/ % ! &&' " interalia(
)
!
$ *&+,&+*, - " !.
/#*,0+#. 1 2/3 % ! ) 4 !
" . 1 "2/ +5*+&+*-*'+&&+*, .&/ 6 ! % " !.78! 6 !
/. 1"2/ +-+'&++5 .9/ 6
" !# % !(#
(# . 1!(# 2/# &,+-&+*0
*-+&&+*,:
; (#&+*,#% %%4
!
# # "< *=+5&+*,interalia(
$ . / )
&9+-&+*0 (
"
# 3 % ( %
% !(# # !*,--3 . / 9 !(#
%!
; $6
% ( ($ 9 ! !! (
% !
&=+*&+*,
% !
%
%$ "Learned State counsel prays for some time to file reply. She, however, on instructions from Dharamjit Singh, O/o RTA Patiala submits that there is no provision as per Motor Vehicles Act for framing of joint timetable of the routes. Three weeks' time is granted for filing reply. To come up on 19.03.2019.
Status quo be maintained till then.
Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Patiala, is directed to remain present in court alongwith relevant record on the next date of hearing." .5/ > *-+&&+*,# % !(# ?( "
.? / 6
! !> *,+9&+*,#( ! % ( %(!(# &*+=&+*,
.=/ @ # ! ! % #(%( % !
%
!#
status quo &=+*&+*, .'/ # !
! &0+'&+*, % 4 8 :
% ( *9+-&+*, ! % ( ! (#
!
%
!(
%
$ .0 0 1.
Filing of reply to the Civil Writ Petition No. 1504 of 2019 in the Hon'ble High Court, without approval of the Government and without getting the same vetted from the office of Advocate General, Punjab. 2.
In the above case, on the basis of the reply prepared by you, in which wrong facts were mentioned in contradiction to the instructions issued, the Government Counsel has given the statement in the Hon'ble High Court to the effect that the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority has no right to frame the joint time table. Whereas as per letter dated 05.12.2018, issued by State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, instructions were issued to all the four Secretaries, Regional Transport Authority, (Patiala, Jalandhar, Ferozepur and Bathinda) of the State of Punjab, to frame/ approve joint time table.A
0 0 0 / "When you were posted as Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Patiala, then you at your own level without the approval of the State Transport Commissioner (Respondent No.2) and Principal Secretary Transport (Respondent No.1) in CWP 1504 of 2019 filed reply dated 25.01.2019, and misrepresented that the Secretary, Transport Authority has no authority to frame joint time table, whereas vide letter dated 05.12.2018 issued by State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, instructions were issued to the four Secretaries of the State of Punjab, Regional Transport Authority (Patiala, Jalandhar, Ferozepur and Bathinda) to frame/ approve a joint time table.
This reply was handed over to the Government counsel without getting approval from the Government and without getting it vetted from the office of Advocate General, Punjab. The Government counsel made a statement in the Punjab and Haryana High Court on the basis of this incorrect reply. As a result thereof, the Hon'ble Court passed the order of status quo in the aforesaid Civil Writ Petition, which resulted in undue benefit to the private transporters and the Government had to face an embarrassing situation. 2.
While taking the above action, you have shown the proof of being an irresponsible officer. As a result thereof, you have made yourself liable for major punishment under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970." .0/
% ( (&5+,&+*,# ! 4
> # !(
!
# " %%
B A C !# % .-/ D ! # (
! $ . /
4 .+5*+&+*- *'+&&+*,/# ! # &&+0&+&*# 4 ! B (A . / E
!
$ # ! ( %
%
8
# !
#
?
# : ./ 7 ) (> ! 9*+-&+&* .,/ 00 .
! ! ! &5+*&+*,#
!(CWP No.1504 of 2019, &=+*&+*,:
% !(# (3!(# % !:
'F0 (#! !(
! +=*&&+*-# !(# (
3 %# ! !
!
6 (% ( !
!
(
3 #( !
! statusquo&=+*&+*, " *-+&&+*,# % !(# ?( "
.? /6
3 % ( ! statusquo ? E
!
$ ! (! !# 3(# ! (# ! ( 4 % 7
! %
!
!*5F*' " 00 . 0 0$ @ ! %
! # ! (!
$ #
) ( ! ( 9*+-&+&* ! ( !
3 # "
% !
( ) ( ) ( ! !
! % E ! % 8!
% ! &&' " 3 ( %
.*+/ C ! 4
% ! .**/ # ! # ! # !&&+0&+&*# 4 ! " (3 # % 8 ( % % % (4! ( %# .*&/
# ! ! ! $ " Whether in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, the impugned chargesheet dated 12.09.2019 is liable to be quashed by this Court?"
.*9/ ..
C 2 " %#% %1# )$/2$/3/3/
+ 4 %, 55 067.9; 6 !
/%
"
# ! 6 !
% ? .% ( !
) $ ! ( ) /
&-F&,
$ "CCC..Thus, we conclude that the disciplinary action can be taken in the following cases (i) Where the officer had acted in a manner as would reflect on his reputation for integrity or good faith or devotion to duty;
(ii) if there is prima facie material to show recklessness or misconduct in the discharge of his duty;
(iii) if he has acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a Government servant;
(iv) if he had acted negligently or that he omitted the prescribed conditions which are essential for the exercise of the statutory powers; (v) if he had acted in order to unduly favour a party;
(vi) if he had been actuated by corrupt motive, however small the bribe may be because Lord Coke said long ago "though the bribe may be small, yet the fault is great."
29.
The instances above catalogued are not exhaustive. However, we may add that for a mere technical violation or merely because the order is wrong and the action not falling under the above enumerated instances, disciplinary action is not warranted. Here, we may utter a word of caution. Each case will depend upon the facts and no absolute rule can be postulated."
C 2 "# 0!")! )8, #%#$ )8
! !%"! %1 +!)$9$/) (+ $++ %1) #)1+ ,.&+*&/**""='=
G
! % # (# !
$ %$! !# %
3 (!! *+# **F*&
#8! $ "10. Ordinarily a writ application does not lie against a chargesheet or show cause notice for
the reason that it does not give rise to any cause of action. It does not amount to an adverse order which affects the right of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction/competence to do so. A writ lies when some right of a party is infringed. In fact, charge sheet does not infringe the right of a party. It is only when a final order imposing the punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, it may have a grievance and cause of action. Thus, a chargesheet or showcause notice in disciplinary proceedings should not ordinarily be quashed by the court. (Vide : State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh; Ulagappa v. Commr., Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana.) 11.
In State of Orissa v. Sangram Keshari Misra (SCC pp.31516, para 10), this Court held that normally a chargesheet is not quashed prior to the conducting of the enquiry on the ground that the facts stated in the charge are erroneous for the reason that to determine correctness or truth of the charge is the function of the disciplinary authority. (See also Union of India. v. Upendra Singh).
12.
Thus, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that the chargesheet cannot generally be a subjectmatter of challenge as it does not adversely affect the rights of the delinquent unless it is established that the same has been issued by an authority not competent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings. Neither the disciplinary proceedings nor the chargesheet be quashed at an
initial stage as it would be a premature stage to deal with the issues. Proceedings are not liable to be quashed on the grounds that proceedings had been initiated at a belated stage or could not be concluded in a reasonable period unless the delay creates prejudice to the delinquent employee. Gravity of alleged misconduct is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration while quashing the proceedings."
:
% # ! (! ! ( !
$ ) : ! ! ( ( !! !
3 % the charge sheet on merits at such an early stage % # unless the same has been issued by a person lacking competency or jurisdiction. .*5/
# % %4
!(# # ! +=*&&+*- % G frame & approve joint time table of routes % !
! % # % $ ! 4 %
C% # ! % ( % !
$ "Office of the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh.
To, The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Patiala, Jalandhar, Ferozepur and Bathinda.
No. S TCP(P1)/18353945 Dated: 05/12/18 Subject: Regarding framing and approval of joint time tables of the routes/ sections in pursuance of the instructions issued vide letter No. STC P(P1)/612830 dated 03.03.2003.
. Please refer to the subject cited above.
You are aware that only the erstwhile RTAs namely, Patiala, Jalandhar, Ferozepur and Bathinda were directed to do the work of framing and approving the joint time tables of the routes/ sections within their previous respective jurisdiction with the help of the dealing officials of all other RTAs concerned vide this office order No. 16527 dated 12.03.2018.
Now as decided by the Government, the instructions issued by this office vide letter No.STCP (P 1)/612830 dated 03.03.2003 regarding the framing and approval of joint time tables by the RTAs, a copy of which is enclosed herewith, are hereby reiterated and henceforth it is directed that the joint time tables of the routes/ sections under your respective jurisdiction shall be strictly framed/ approved by the RTAs according to these instructions. Any deviation from these instructions while framing and approving the time tables shall be viewed seriously.
You are hereby directed to complete the whole process within a period of one month positively. Sd/State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh."
8!!( Bany deviation from these instructions while framing and approving the time tables shall be viewed seriously."
# ' (
! +=*&&+*-#
( !(# 3 (
(# Bthere is no provision in Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for framing of the joint time table of the routes by the Regional Transport AuthoritiesA (# ( % ( ! # (# ?
! # ! "that there is no provision as per Motor Vehicles Act for framing of joint timetable of the routes" ! status quo &=+*&+*,
) resulted into undue benefit to the private transporters and the Government had to face an embarrassing situation. (
) (!
# #%
( ! ! !! %(#% !3 #
) ( ! .*=/
! !
! !! !(
!
#
! :
!3 !!
% ( ! ( ! !
! &+*,3 % B $ A% B A .*'/ (# 4# % ! ! ( &&+0&+&* ( (
#
!! !
! G
3 (!
!! !% % % !
(! ! .*0/
! !
!
$ # % 4 8 !
! &0+'&+*,3 %
D (!
%!!
# ( #
!
$
3 ! ! ! ( $ !
.*-/
!
!
$ ./ (% ! .*,/
! % 4
!
C 2 " 0 ! :%; ( 9$/9/3/3+ %% %1 +!)$,
0 # (!
!
$ ) 3
(
:
9/3/ 3+ %% <$ " $! ./# !
$ % !! "
! ! 95
#% !
$ "34. The High Court while delving into the issue went into the factum of announcement of the Chief Minister in regard to appointment of an enquiry officer to substantiate the frame of mind of the authorities and thus depicting bias- what bias
means has already been dealt with by us earlier in this judgment, as such it does not require any further dilation but the factum of announcement has been taken note of as an illustration to a mindset viz.: the inquiry shall proceed irrespective of the reply- is it an indication of a free and fair attitude towards the officer concerned? The answer cannot possibly be in the affirmative. It is well settled in service jurisprudence that the authority concerned has to apply its mind upon receipt of reply to the chargesheet or showcause as the case may be, as to whether a further inquiry is called for. In the event upon deliberations and due considerations it is in the affirmative-the inquiry follows but not otherwise and it is this part of service jurisprudence on which reliance was placed by Mr. Subramanium and on that score, strongly criticised the conduct of the respondents (sic appellants) herein and accused them of being biased. We do find some justification in such a criticism upon consideration of the materials on record."
> %
!
$ !! ( $ ! ( .&+/ ! ) ( ! (
# # % " ! !
) ( 8
(%( ! % .&*/ :
% ! ! ! ! ! # ! 4!
)
!
$ *&+,&+*,% 8!
! !&&' " .&&/ # 8! % .&9/ >!!
( .&5/
% ! ( # ) ( !% ! 8 ( ! ) ( # ! ( 4 ! %%
8% # .&=/
( ! 8 !# (
(
!"!'(!)* +,
00 $ %; 8 < 4
H I
< I