IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 1920 of 2007 Decided on: October 27, 2008 H.P. State Electricity Board Petitioner Vs. Swaran Singh Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. R.P. Singh, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, Judge (oral) The main contention of the petitioner, H.P. State Electricity Board, is that the Learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal has erred in quashing the entire disciplinary proceeding only on the ground that the copy of the inquiry report was not served upon the delinquent official when the notice proposing to impose penalty was served upon him. 2. Since a short legal question is involved, we are not going into the detailed facts of the case. It would suffice to state that the respondent (hereinafter referred to as ‘the delinquent official’) was charged with having remained willfully absent from duty. The delinquent official denied the charge and according to him, he had remained absent because of the illness of his family Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes …2… member and had been informing the Board in this regard. It was also the case of the delinquent official that in fact in the year 1989 he had rejoined duty and till the year 1992, no posting order was given to him and, therefore, for this period he should be treated on duty and could not be said to be absent. 3. Admittedly, when the Inquiry Officer submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority, the latter Authority issued a notice to the delinquent official proposing to impose penalty upon him. No copy of the inquiry report was served upon the delinquent official. The learned Tribunal on this short ground held that the entire disciplinary proceedings were liable to be quashed. The Apex Court in a number of authorities has clearly held that in case disciplinary proceedings are held to be illegal on the ground of non-supply of the inquiry report, the illegality is from that stage onwards only and does not make the disciplinary proceedings prior to that stage illegal. There can be no dispute with this preposition of law. The learned Tribunal, therefore, in our opinion, erred in quashing the disciplinary proceedings in their entirety. 4. Mr. R.P. Singh, learned counsel for the delinquent official has argued that the matter relates to the year 1989. He submits that the disciplinary proceedings were started in 1989 and completed in the year 1994. Thereafter, the delinquent official filed the Original Application before the Learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal which was decided after 12 years. He submits that the respondent has already attained the age of …3… superannuation and, therefore, no purpose would be served by setting aside the order of the learned Tribunal. 5. We are unable to accept the contention of Mr. R.P. Singh. The learned Tribunal, in our opinion, could not have passed an order which is against the law laid down by the Apex Court. Having said so, we are also of the view that the delinquent official, who is a senior citizen, should not be put to undue hardship. We, therefore, propose to direct the petitioner Board to complete the entire disciplinary proceeding within a fixed time frame. 6. In view of the above discussion, we set aside the impugned order of the Learned Tribunal dated 23rd March, 2007 passed in O.A. No. 666 of 1995 and direct that the petitioner Board may continue with the disciplinary proceeding from the stage of the issuance of show cause notice for imposition of penalty. It is not disputed before us that during the course of proceedings, the delinquent official has already received the copy of the inquiry report. We direct that the Disciplinary Authority shall send notice regarding the imposition of the penalty to the respondent at his address i.e. House No. 1111, Sector-19-B, Chandigarh by registered post on or before 22nd November 2008. The delinquent official shall send his reply by registered post to the Disciplinary Authority on or before 8th December 2008. The Disciplinary Authority shall ensure that the final decision in the matter is taken latest by 31st December 2008. …4… 7. In case the delinquent official is aggrieved by the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, he may file an appeal within one month from the date the disciplinary order is conveyed to him by the disciplinary authority. We further direct that the appellant authority shall decide the appeal, if any, filed by the delinquent official within two months from the date of filing of the appeal. We make it clear that in case the petitioner Board does not take action within the time frame laid down above, the disciplinary proceedings shall be deemed to have dropped. 8. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. October 27, 2008 ( V.K. Ahuja ), J. (vs)