IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 5155 of 2008 Date of Decision: 10th May, 2010 Anil Kumar Dhiman Petitioner Versus State of H.P. Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol,J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the petitioner: Ms.Archana Dutt, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr.R.M.Bisht, Deputy Advocate General. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) 1. Petitioner, who was working as Assistant Engineer was transferred on 4.3.1994 from Nauradhar, District Sirmaur, H.P. to Dodra Kwar, District Shimla, H.P. He was relieved on 6.5.1994 but did not join his place of posting till 19.5.1994, the time given for joining. Instead petitioner joined at Dodra Kwar on 13.7.1994 and immediately proceeded on leave. In fact he did not resume his duties and continued to remain absent on the pretext of his father’s illness. He did not seek any prior leave and informed only by sending telegrams from his native place. 2. Petitioner was placed under suspension on 20.12.1994 which order was subsequently revoked on 21.7.1995. But, however, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on 12.1.1995. The Enquiry Officer, Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment? 2 after complying with the principles of natural justice as also statutory requirements submitted his report and found that petitioner’s absence was not intentional and was necessitated due to the illness of his father. The Disciplinary Authority decided to disagree with the same and consequently issued notice dated 12.6.1996 (Annexure A-9) calling upon him to make adequate representation. Opportunity was availed by the petitioner and reply (Annexure A-11) was filed by him. The Disciplinary Authority did not find favour with the explanation furnished by the petitioner and consequently passed order dated 2.6.1998 (Annexure A-12) thereby imposing the following penalty:- “Now, therefore, the Governor, Himachal Pradesh in consultation with the Himachal Pradesh Service Commission and in exercise of the powers conferred under the CCS CCA Rules, 1965, hereby imposes the following penalty upon Sh. Anil Kumar Dhiman, Assistant Engineer:- “Reduction of pay by 5 stages for two years with cumulative effect”. 3. Petitioner is aggrieved of the same. The penalty imposed is minor. The authorities have already taken a lenient view of the matter. The fact that the petitioner remained absent from duty for a long duration is not in dispute. The Disciplinary Authority took into account petitioner’s representation and came to the conclusion that even for a period of nine months no communication seeking leave of the kind due had been sent by the petitioner. For one reason or the other, petitioner had avoided to discharge his duties effectively and efficiently. The medical certificates justifying his absence were submitted only during the course of hearing. 3 4. In my considered view, sufficient opportunity of hearing/ representation has been afforded to the petitioner for all times. The scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the case in hand is restricted. Principles of natural justice at all level stand complied with. The order passed by the authority cannot be said to perverse in any manner. No justiciable right of the petitioner stands violated. Hence the present petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. 10th May, 2010 (Sanjay Karol) (C) Judge.