IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Review No. 68 of 2008 and CWP (T) No. 45 of 2010 (OA No. 2910 of 1994). Decided on: 19.11.2010. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. Civil Review No. 68 of 2008: Mohan Lall Thakur ….Petitioner. Versus The HP State Civil Supplies Corpn. and anr. …..Respondents. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2. CWP (T) No. 45 of 2010 (OA No. 2910 of 1994): Mohan Lall Thakur ….Petitioner. Versus The HP State Civil Supplies Corpn. and anr. ….Respondents. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the petitioner : Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Dushyant Dadhwal, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral). Civil Review No. 68 of 2008: This is a review petition filed by the applicant in O.A. No. 2910 of 1994. The matter pertains to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner by the first respondent- Corporation. The petitioner was removed from service. The petitioner challenged the said order before the Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 2910 of 1994. The Tribunal dismissed the application by order dated 1.8.2001. That order was challenged before this Court in CWP No. 1275 of 2001. It was contended that several points argued by the petitioner have not been adverted to or dealt with in the order of the Tribunal. 2. In that view of the matter, this Court disposed of the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the Tribunal pointing out all the points which were addressed before the Tribunal and not dealt with by the Tribunal and thus, the review petition. 2 3. Though several contentions are taken before us, having heard the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner and the learned counsel for the Corporation, we find that some of the major issues addressed by the petitioner were not seen adverted to in the order passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, as held by this Court in the judgment dated 17.12.2001 in CWP No. 1275 of 2001, the matter requires reconsideration on those aspects as well including the aspect that there is no considered order on the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner before the Board of Directors. In that view of the matter, the review petition is allowed. Order dated 1.8.2001 passed in OA No. 2910 of 1994 is recalled. CWP (T) No. 45 of 2010 (OA No. 2910 of 1994): 4. The petitioner approached the Tribunal challenging Annexures A-1 to A-4 and A-6, the orders passed by the 1st Respondent. The issue pertains to the Disciplinary Proceedings initiated against the petitioner culminating in removal from service. It is seen that against Annexure A-4, the order passed by the first respondent removing the petitioner from service, the petitioner had filed a detailed appeal before the Board of Directors. That appeal was disposed of by the Board of Directors as per Annexure A-6 order dated 20.8.1992, the text of which reads as under:- “We want to inform you that the Board of Directors has considered your appeal and has rejected the same. This is with reference to your appeal dated nil before the Board of Directors.” 5. Though several contentions are taken by the petitioner including the contention that he is innocent in the matter, in any case the inquiry is vitiated, no inquiry report had been given to him, he was forced to make an admission regarding the misappropriation so as to recover the amount from the Insurance Company, he has been found innocent by the Criminal Court under section 409 IPC, the very procedure followed in the inquiry itself is 3 vitiated and thus going to the root of the issue etc., we find that it is not necessary for this Court at this stage to go into those aspects since we find that the appellate authority has not addressed any of the grounds taken by the appellant. Being an order of punishment and that too extreme punishment of removal from service the delinquent employee has every right to make an attempt for change of heart before the appellate authority. It is one of the most important facets of the principles of natural justice and fairness that the appellate authority considers the appeal on all the grounds taken by the petitioner and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case with an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 6. In that view of the matter, we set aside Annexure A-6 with a direction to the Board of Directors/appellate authority under the Corporation to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner against the punishment of removal from service with reference to all the grounds taken by the petitioner in the appeal and addressed before the Board of Directors at the time of hearing. Needless to say that the petitioner will be afforded an opportunity of hearing by the appellate authority. Order shall also be passed by the appellate authority within a period of four months from the date of production of copy of this judgment by the petitioner. Copy dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice V.K. Sharma), Judge. November 19, 2010. (cr/kck)