1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.11 of 2006 Decided on: 22nd May, 2009 H.R.T.C. and Anr. …..Petitioners. VERSUS Suresh Kumar …..Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners : Mr.H.S.Rawat, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr.K.D.Shreedhar with Mr.Vikrant Thakur, Advocates. Per Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) This petition, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the Himachal Road Transport Corporation and one of its functionaries, seeking judicial review of order dated 2nd December, 2005, whereby Original Application No. 2442 of 1998, filed by respondent Suresh Kumar, has been allowed and order of his removal from service has been quashed and set-aside. 2. Relevant facts are that respondent Suresh Kumar was working as a driver with the Himachal Road Transport Corporation. He was charge sheeted for various acts of mis-conduct, based on the allegation that on 26th November, 1994 he was found drunk and under 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2 excessive influence of liquor at 7.30 p.m. and that at 1.30 a.m. he was supposed to be deployed to drive a bus. He was taken to the hospital for medical examination, but doctor was not available. Inquiry Officer was appointed. 3. Inquiry Officer exonerated him with the reasoning that he was found in drunken condition, six hours before he was to report for duty and during this gap of six hours, influence of liquor was supposed to dis-appear or at least subside. Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the finding of the Inquiry Officer and passed order of removal from service. The impugned order is Annexure P-6. 4. Respondent challenged the order of his removal by filing Original Application before the tribunal. That application has been allowed and the order has been set aside. Reasons given by the tribunal are that the Disciplinary Authority did not afford any opportunity to the respondent to make representation qua his disagreement with the Inquiry report and also that the Disciplinary Authority, in his order, made a mention that he was a witness to the incident of the respondent being under the influence of liquor and as such, he should not have acted as Disciplinary Authority in the case. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record. 6. We see no reason to take a view different from the one taken by the learned tribunal. Admittedly, it was that very person, who reported that the respondent was drunk, who acted as Disciplinary Authority in this case. It is well settled principle of natural justice that a person cannot be a judge of his own cause. The service rules provide 3 for the procedure to be followed in a case where the Disciplinary Authority itself happens to be the witness to the alleged act of mis- conduct. In such a situation, higher authorities are approached for appointment of ad hoc Disciplinary Authority. 7. Further-more, before holding the respondent guilty, the Disciplinary Authority was supposed to have supplied to the respondent a copy of the report of the Inquiry Officer, alongwith his tentative views for dis-agreeing with the finding of the Inquiry Officer and to have afforded him an opportunity to make representation against his tentative views and only after considering such representation, the Disciplinary Authority could have held him guilty. In this case this procedure was not followed. The Disciplinary Authority, after perusing the inquiry report, recorded its conclusion, dis-agreeing with the finding of the Inquiry Officer exonerating the respondent and held him guilty. 5. In view of the above stated position, we see no reason for interfering with the well reasoned order of the learned tribunal. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. ( R. B. Misra ), Judge. ( Surjit Singh ), Judge. 22nd May, 2009(K)