IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 12276 of 2008. Reserved on: 14.05.2010. Decided on: 17.05.2010. Shri Anil Kumar. … Petitioner. Versus The Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation and others. … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner: Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. H.S. Rawat, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, Judge: Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 vide memorandum dated 24.8.1992. He did not file any reply to the same though he had received the memorandum on 5.10.1992. The case was entrusted to The Regional Manager (Inquiries) vide office order dated 18.2.1993 to inquire into the charges Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - leveled against the petitioner. Inquiry Officer vide report dated 11.5.2000 concluded that charge No.1 stood proved. The Inquiry Officer furnished the report to the disciplinary authority. Memorandum was issued to him on 22.9.2000 whereby the disciplinary authority provisionally came to the conclusion to impose the penalty of stoppage of four increments for four years without cumulative effect. He was permitted to file the reply within 15 days. He received the memorandum on 16.4.2001. Reminders were issued to him on 18.6.2001 and 6.9.2001 to submit the reply. He filed the reply on 26.12.2001. The disciplinary authority vide memorandum dated 29.1.2002 had withdrawn the show cause notice dated 22.9.2000 and fresh show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 29.1.2002 to impose the penalty of removal from service. Petitioner did not file any reply though he had received the show cause notice on 5.2.2002. In sequel to issuance of show cause notice dated 29.1.2002, the disciplinary authority vide office order dated 28.2.2002 has imposed the penalty of removal upon the petitioner. 2. Mr. A. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the disciplinary authority could not withdraw the show cause notice dated 22.9.2000, whereby the penalty of stoppage of four increments for four years without cumulative effect was proposed, vide show cause notice dated 29.1.2002. Mr. H.S. Rawat, learned - 3 - counsel for the respondents argued that the Management has decided to withdraw the show cause notice issued earlier vide decision dated 29.1.2002 and no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 4. Mr. H.S. Rawat has produced the record during the course of hearing. What emerges from the facts narrated hereinabove is that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. Inquiry Officer was appointed. He has furnished the inquiry report to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority had issued show cause notice to the petitioner on 22.9.2000. He belatedly filed reply to the show cause notice on 26.12.2001. The disciplinary authority after taking into consideration the reply furnished by the petitioner decided to withdraw the earlier notice issued on 22.9.2000. This decision was taken by Management on 29.1.2002 and the same is on record, produced by Mr. H.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the respondents. It is only thereafter that fresh show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 29.1.2002 whereby the Management has decided to impose the penalty of removal from service upon the petitioner. The petitioner in his own wisdom has not chosen to file reply to show cause notice - 4 - dated 29.1.2002 though he received copy of the same on 5.2.2002. There is no merit in the contention of Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner that the show cause notice issued on 22.9.2000 could not be withdrawn. He has failed to prove what prejudice has been caused to his client by withdrawal of memorandum/show cause notice dated 22.9.2000 whereby the disciplinary authority has provisionally come to the conclusion to impose the penalty of stoppage of four increments for four years without cumulative effect. Petitioner has also not chosen to file reply to the charge-sheet issued by the disciplinary authority on 24.8.1992. Charge No.1 stood proved as per report of the Inquiry Officer. He was also given personal hearing when his earlier Original Application bearing No.588 of 2005 was directed to be treated as representation to the Managing Director of the respondent- Corporation. There is no violation of the principles of natural justice as argued by Mr. A.K. Gupta. He has been afforded reasonable opportunity to defend himself at every stage of the departmental inquiry. Mr. A.K. Gupta has lastly argued that the penalty of removal imposed upon his client is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. 5. It has come on record that the petitioner was involved in 26 cases by not issuing tickets to the passengers during the service period of about 21 years. He was penalized by withholding his annual increments and censure and four - 5 - cases were pending as on 4.5.2005. The disciplinary authority has merely mentioned the proposed penalty in office order dated 22.9.2000. It is not the case where the major penalty of removal has been imposed upon the petitioner without issuing show cause notice. The earlier show cause notice was withdrawn on the basis of decision dated 29.1.2002 and fresh show cause notice was issued to the petitioner proposing the penalty of removal. He has not filed any reply to the same, as noticed above, despite receiving copy of the same on 5.2.2002. Accordingly, since the petitioner had also been involved in about 26 cases of not issuing the tickets, the penalty of removal imposed upon the petitioner is neither harsh nor disproportionate. It is only in those cases where the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority is disproportionate, harsh and oppressive and pricks the conscious of the Court, the Court can direct the disciplinary authority to re-consider the imposition of penalty. 6. No other point was urged. 7. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge. May 17, 2010. (sck).