CWP(T) No.11925/2008 08.10.2010 Present: Mr. V. D. Khidta, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy. A.G. for the respondents There is no dispute that during the pendency of the present petition, petitioner applied for voluntary retirement which request was acceded to by the State. As such as of now petitioner is no longer in service of the respondents. 2. In this petition petitioner has essentially assailed order dated 21.4.2006 (Annexure A-19) which reads as under:- “WHEREAS, Dr. P.C. Gupta, Medical Officer, ESI Dispensary Barotiwala, Distt. Solan was charge sheeted under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 vide this Department Memorandum No. Health A-B(6)- 1/2004, dated 2.3.05 for disobedience of Government orders. Sh. Rajeev Sharma, Addl. Director of Health Services, H.P. was appointed as an Inquiry Officer to inquire into the charges. AND WHEREAS, the Inquiry Officer has submitted inquiry report wherein the charges were proved against the said Dr. P.C. Gupta on 18.3.2006. AND WHEREAS, Dr. P.C. Gupta was afforded an opportunity to make representation against the said inquiry report, has made representation on 10.4.06. NOW THEREFORE, after due consideration of the facts of the case, the charges, the Inquiry Report, his representation and other relevant material, the undersigned in exercise of the powers vested under Rule 15 of CCS (CC&A) Rules 1965 hereby imposes minor penalty of “Withholding of two increments without commulative (sic) effect” upon the said Dr. P. C. Gupta. By Order & in the name of Governor / (Harinder Hira) Pr. Secretary (Health) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh” 3. Case emerging from record is that on 15.12.2004 petitioner was transferred from his place of posting i.e. ESI Dispensary Barotiwala, Distt. Solan to C.H., Rohroo. This order is not on record. It is the respondents’ contention that petitioner did not comply with the same. Consequently disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. He was served with a show cause notice which was responded to by him vide letter dated 22.3.2005. It was clarified that since petitioner stood relieved only on 3.3.2005 hence disciplinary proceedings initiated against him on 2.3.2005 were legally untenable in law. 4. Disciplinary Authority continued with the inquiry. An Inquiry Officer was appointed who held the petitioner guilty of the charge of not complying with the orders of transfer dated 15.12.2004. Eventually respondents issued the impugned order imposing minor penalty. 5. From the report it is evident that the Inquiry Officer did not discuss and take into account the evidence led by the petitioner. The report appears to be one side. In a perfunctory manner he has held the petitioner guilty of having misconducted himself. He has not dealt the petitioner’s plea that the inquiry instituted against him was premature for the reason that he was relieved only on 3.3.2005 whereas charge-sheet was issued on 2.3.2005. Whole proceedings are vitiated being arbitrary, capricious for non-consideration of entire material on record. Thus order of imposing penalty is illegal. 6. For all the aforesaid reasons, the order imposing penalty is quashed. Petition stands disposed of. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. October 08, 2010 (rana)