Can HRTC Remove Employees Without Inquiry Following Conviction? Himachal Pradesh High Court Says No

Can HRTC Remove Employees Without Inquiry Following Conviction? Himachal Pradesh High Court Says No

In a significant ruling, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla has held that the Himachal Road Transport Corporation (HRTC) cannot axiomatically terminate an employee solely on the basis of a criminal conviction without adhering to mandated procedural safeguards. Justice Sandeep Sharma quashed the removal of a long-serving driver, emphasizing that even when invoking special provisions to bypass traditional inquiries, authorities must record substantive reasons for doing so.

A Long Road to Litigation

The petitioner, Shiv Raj, served as a driver for the HRTC for over 28 years. His legal troubles stemmed from a 2011 road accident near the Jalandhar-Pathankot bypass. Following a trial, he was convicted under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code. Although the Punjab and Haryana High Court later reduced his sentence to the period already undergone, the HRTC initiated removal proceedings against him under Rule 19 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965.

The corporation argued that since the driver’s conduct led to a criminal conviction, they were empowered to summarily remove him without conducting a formal departmental inquiry.

The Conflict of Due Process

The petitioner’s counsel contended that Rule 19 is not an open license for arbitrary dismissal. They argued that the authority failed to record any written reasons as to why it was "not reasonably practicable" to hold an inquiry, thereby causing the petitioner to lose his pension and retirement benefits after nearly three decades of service. Conversely, the HRTC maintained that the conviction provided sufficient grounds for the immediate cessation of the employment contract, rendering a full-scale disciplinary inquiry redundant.

Judicial Analysis and Precedent

In its analysis, the High Court clarified that while Rule 19 provides for a special procedure, it does not mandate automatic removal upon conviction. The court stressed that the disciplinary authority is under a strict legal obligation to apply its mind to the nature and gravity of the offense, the impact on service, and the suitability of the employee.

Justice Sandeep Sharma noted, "Though Rule 19 (ii) enables the Disciplinary Authority to not hold an inquiry, but for doing so, it is under obligation to record reasons that for such reasons, it is not practicable to hold an inquiry provided under rules."

The Court drew heavily from the Supreme Court’s decision in Pawan Kumar v. Union of India and Anr. , reiterating that employees should not be terminated "just by a stroke of pen" without an opportunity to explain their conduct.

Key Observations

• "What emerges from the exposition as laid down by this Court is that by mere suppression of material/false information regardless of the fact whether there is a conviction or acquittal has been recorded, the employee/recruit is not to be discharged/terminated axiomatically from service just by a stroke of pen."
• "Employer having right to remove the employee from service, without enquiry, has to consider all relevant factors, like nature and gravity of offence... and competent authority is expected to exercise its power under these provisions after due caution and considerable application of mind."
• "No reason whatsoever ever, came to be adduced on record at the behest of the authority reasonable for termination/removal that for such reasons it is not possible to hold inquiry."

Final Verdict

The High Court set aside the orders of termination, directing the HRTC to reinstate the petitioner and release his eligible retirement benefits. This decision serves as a stern reminder to state corporations that efficiency in disciplinary matters cannot override the constitutional guarantee of due process, even when dealing with employees convicted of criminal offenses. By failing to justify the bypass of standard inquiry procedures, the HRTC’s action was deemed legally unsustainable.