9-month job, 29-year battle: Court upholds sacking of transport employee who ‘took it casually’, kept running private buses

Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj observed that rules clearly prohibit a government servant from directly or indirectly engaging in trade or business after joining service.

The high court was hearing the plea filed by one Nazakat Ali Hashmi, who joined as an inspector, challenging the termination order issued by Himachal Road Transport Corporation (HRTC) and seeking reinstatement with all consequential benefits. 

An inspector employed in the road transport corporation is a supervisory official responsible for ensuring the smooth, safe, and efficient operation of public buses across its route. 

9 months job, 29 years battle

The employee, Nazakat Ali Hashmi, was appointed as an inspector with the said corporation on December 26, 1996, and joined service on January 17, 1997. Before joining HRTC, he was allegedly engaged in the private transport business and owned two buses registered in his name.

According to Hashmi, after securing government employment, he attempted to transfer the ownership and route permits of the buses to his family members and wrote to Tata Finance Limited in March 1997 seeking transfer of the loan accounts and permits. However, the finance company refused permission, stating that the buses and permits could not be transferred until the outstanding loan amount was fully cleared.

Subsequently, in July 1997, HRTC issued a show-cause notice alleging that Hashmi was continuing to operate private buses in violation of the relevant rules, which prohibit government employees from engaging in private trade or business without prior sanction. 

Later, in September 1997, the corporation gave the petitioner 15 days to either surrender the route permits and dispose of the buses or quit his job. Since he neither surrendered the permits nor disposed of the buses, the corporation terminated his services on October 13, 1997.

Hashmi subsequently challenged the termination before the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. However, in 2010, the matter was disposed of with liberty to file a statutory appeal before the managing director of HRTC, who later rejected the appeal after holding that the employee had continued operating private buses despite repeated opportunities to comply with service rules.

Aggrieved by the rejection of his challenge and seeking reinstatement with back wages and consequential benefits, Hashmi approached the Himachal Pradesh High Court with this present petition. 

‘No response received from employee’

• The court noted that the employee was hired on a post which was purely temporary and on a year-to-year basis, and before the expiry of one year, his services were terminated, pointing out no illegality in the order passed by the said corporation. 
• The court further noted that the said corporation gave enough time to the petitioner to either surrender the route permits and dispose of his private buses or else quit the HRTC job. 
• However, it was found that the man did not respond to that communication, and his services were terminated by the HRTC.
• The high court found that it was not in dispute that the said corporation had not granted any sanction to the petitioner to carry on the business of plying the vehicles. 
• It was further noted that the corporation was also carrying on the business of plying buses, and as such, the continuation of the same by the petitioner would have definitely hampered their interest. 
• The court also noted that the corporation gave enough time to the petitioner to either surrender the route permits and dispose of his private buses or else quit the HRTC job. 

Arguments 

Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Bimal Gupta argued that, once in the appointment order dated December 26, 1996, there was no stipulation to carry on the business, the petitioner should not be stopped from carrying on the business of plying the buses. 

He further argued that the petitioner, after joining the said corporation, had taken steps to transfer the bus permits as well as loan account in the name of his family members on March 11, 1997 however, the said request was turned down by the finance company in April 1970 stating that the loan amount was given to the petitioner based on the bus permits granted by the Himachal Pradesh government. 

It was added that since there was no fault on the part of the petitioner and he could not transfer the vehicles only on account of the permission not being granted by the finance company, the order of termination was bad in law. 

Representing the state authority, advocate Shyam Singh Chauhan submitted that the petitioner had not disclosed the fact of running the buses in his name at the time of his recruitment and even thereafter had failed to surrender the route permit within the time given by the said corporation.