IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 09.07.2025 Parmod Kumar ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Mazlish Khan, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

*****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

1. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 09.10.2024 passed by respondent No.2 viz. Director, State Transport, Haryana, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed, as well as to the order dated 09.12.2015 passed by respondent No.4 viz. General Manager, Haryana State Transport, Panipat whereby the punishment of reduction in pay scale and time scale for a period of three years, along with the denial of annual increments during the said period, was imposed upon the petitioner, apart from restricting the suspension period to subsistence allowance only.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the office of respondent No.3, viz., the Transport Commissioner, Haryana, on a contractual basis in the year 1993, and his services were regularised in the year 1995. It is submitted that the petitioner continued to discharge his duties with utmost diligence and sincerity. On 17.09.2011, the vehicle, i.e., Bus bearing registration No. HR-67A-0389, was inspected by four Inspectors of the Chandigarh Depot at Sainj, and it was alleged that four passengers travelling from Chandigarh to Rampur had not been issued tickets despite the full fare having been received from them. Counsel contends that the tickets had, in fact, not been taken by the passengers themselves and, instead of penalising the passengers who were travelling without tickets, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. As per the preliminary enquiry, a total of 23 passengers were alleged to be travelling without tickets. The Enquiry Officer reported that there was an embezzlement of Rs.3,770/-. The petitioner was hence suspended vide order dated 27.09.2011 and a charge- sheet dated 28.12.2011 was served upon him. The Traffic Manager was appointed as the Enquiry Officer vide office order No.12141 dated 16.05.2012. The petitioner filed his detailed reply to the said charge-sheet before the Enquiry Officer. He contends that the Enquiry Officer however did not conduct an enquiry into the allegation. Neither any witness was examined by the presenting officer nor was any other evidence led or document submitted. No opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses was also afforded to the petitioner. Hence the charges levelled against him were thus never proved. Nonetheless, respondent No.4 imposed punishment, vide office order No.4063/ECC dated 09.12.2015 to the following effect: (i) Reduction of pay scale and time scale for a period of three years;

(ii) Withholding of annual increments during the said period; and (iii) Limiting the suspension period to subsistence allowance only.

3. Aggrieved thereof, a statutory appeal was preferred before the competent appellate authority within the stipulated period. However, when the said appeal remained undecided, the petitioner approached this Court by filing CWP-4535-2024. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 07.03.2024, directing the respondents to decide the pending appeal in a time-bound manner. In compliance thereof, the impugned order dated 09.10.2024 has been passed by the appellate authority vide office order No.5330/A6/E3, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the order of punishment imposed earlier by the punishing authority has been affirmed. Aggrieved thereby, the instant writ petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently argued that the respondent-authorities erred in failing to appreciate that the department did not succeed in proving any of the charges against the petitioner. He submits that the responsibility is ca