IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) 14875 of 2008. Decided on June 3, 2011. Avtar Singh Chauhan … Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Asstt. A.G. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner was working as Junior Assistant, in the office of the Governor, Himachal Pradesh, in the year 2005. He was sanctioned leave, from 27.1.2005 to 5.2.2005, with permission to prefix holidays, falling on 25th and 26th January, 2005. He was supposed to have departed from the office on 24.1.2005, after office hours. However, he left the office at 11.30 A.M. and before leaving the office, he marked his attendance in the register, in the column pertaining to time of departure, and the departure time was printed as 5 P.M. Also, he did not hand over charge of his seat to anybody, in writing. Further, one invitation card, addressed to His Excellency, the Governor, was with him, Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? - 2 - which he did not deliver to Private Secretary to the Governor, before proceeding on leave. 2. Petitioner was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid acts of dereliction of duty, which amount to misconduct. He denied the charge. Regular inquiry was held. He was found guilty of leaving the office at 11.30 A.M. and also not delivering the invitation card to the Private Secretary to the Governor. His appointing authority then visited him with the penalty of stoppage of two increments, without cumulative effect. Appeal, filed by the petitioner, to the Chief Secretary, was dismissed. 3. Petitioner then filed Original Application before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. On abolition of the said Tribunal, matter has come to this Court and it has been registered as Civil Writ Petition No. 14875 of 2008. 4. Respondents, in their reply, have stated that the charge was proved during the course of inquiry and the petitioner has rightly been punished. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Inquiry Officer did not take into account the entire evidence, especially the entry in attendance register and the admission, made in cross examination by PW-4 Bal Krishan, Mali, while returning the findings against the petitioner. Presenting side examined one Shri D.S.Gautam, immediate supervisory officer of the petitioner. The witness stated, in no uncertain terms, that the petitioner left the office at 11.30 A.M. - 3 - Witness further stated that he made a mention of this fact, on the departure report of the petitioner, which he submitted, while proceeding on leave. Learned counsel submits that attendance of the petitioner is marked in the register, upto 5 P.M., because he put his signatures on 24.1.2005, under both the columns of arrival and departure, and the time of departure is mentioned as 5 P.M. in the register. Merely, for the reason that the petitioner has put his initial/ signature, in the attendance register, below the printed column, that he left the office at 5 in the evening, cannot be a ground for disbelieving the testimony of Shri D.S.Gautam, who very categorically stated that the petitioner left the office at 11.30 A.M. 7. Invitation card, meant for his Excellency, the Governor, was also required to be delivered to the Private Secretary to the Governor. Petitioner took the plea that he handed over the card to Mali, for delivering the same to Private Secretary. Mali was examined by the presenting side. In examination-in-chief, he denied that the card was handed over to him by the petitioner. In cross examination, witness, however, stated that one card was handed over to him on 31st December, 2004, by the petitioner. There is nothing on record, showing that the card, which was handed over to the witness on 31st December, 2004, as per his testimony in cross examination, was the same, with respect to which, charge was framed against the petitioner. 8. For the foregoing reasons, no fault can be found with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and the - 4 - consequential order of punishment. Petition is, therefore, dismissed. June 3, 2011(PC) (Surjit Singh ), J.