Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA
Shiv Raj – Appellant
Versus
Himachal Road Transport Corporation – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. driver convicted in accident; removed without inquiry. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. parties argue rule 19 application on conviction. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. rule 19 requires reasons to dispense inquiry. (Para 7 , 8 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. no automatic removal post-conviction; consider factors. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. procedural lapses in prior proceedings and review. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 6. quash removal; reinstate with retiral benefits. (Para 17 , 18) |
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep Sharma, J.
Petitioner herein is aggrieved of order dated 15.11.2021 (Annexure P-13), whereby Review Petition having been filed by him against the order dated 22.8.2020, laying therein challenge to order dated 22.8.2020, passed by the Managing Director, Himachal Road Transport Corporation, thereby upholding order of removal of the petitioner from service vide letter dated 23.12.2019 (Annexure P-9), came to be dismissed.
2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that petitioner herein, who is working as Driver in Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Hamirpur, was deployed with bus bearing registration No. HP67-1811, enroute Hamirpur-Amritsar on 22.3.2011. Unfortunately afore said bus met with an accident at Jala
Conviction on criminal charge does not trigger automatic removal under Rule 19 CCS(CCA) Rules; must record reasons to dispense with inquiry, consider offence nature, service impact, and afford repres....
Removal from service post-criminal conviction not automatic under Rule 19(i) CCS(CCA) Rules; requires disciplinary authority's active consideration of all circumstances, effective representation oppo....
Rule 19 of CCS CCA Rules reads as penalty imposed on a Government servant on ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge.
Conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act justifies removal from service, with distinctions among similarly convicted employees not supporting claims of discrimination or negative equality.
Departure from regular disciplinary inquiry under Rule 14(ii) RS(D&A) Rules requires specific recorded reasons for impracticability; vague satisfaction invalidates removal order, especially with crim....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of recording reasons for dispensing with the enquiry while removing a person from service, as mandated by Rule 19 (ii) of the Rules....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
