IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 4494 of 2008 (OA No.1472/1997) Date of Decision : April 7, 2009 Sansar Chand …Applicant-petitioner Versus: State of H. P. & Ors. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner: Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R. K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A. G. & Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. A. G. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Petitioner has filed the present petition assailing the orders passed by the Director, Consolidation directing the stoppage of one increment for three years. While working as Kanungo in the office of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner and he was served with the Memorandum and articles of charge. He prepared fake record of proceedings of having prepared tatimas and conducted demarcation from 7.1.1993 to 16.1.1993 and 24.1.1993 to 27.1.1993. Petitioner was transferred and upon his transfer, demarcation was completed by another official. Further, petitioner failed to complete the work assigned to him and, as such, violated CCS-Conduct Rules, 1964. The memorandum and articles of charge admittedly were received by him as petitioner replied to the same vide his reply dated 2.11.1994 (Annexure A- 2/T). An endeavour was made to justify his conduct. He did not request for a personal hearing in the matter. The disciplinary authority, after considering the entire material found the explanation given by the petitioner to be unsatisfactory 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 and, as such, by taking a lenient view imposed a minor penalty of “stoppage of one increment for three years.” Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner-cum- Secretary (Revenue), which also stood rejected vide orders dated 27.4.1995. The Financial Commissioner (Revenue) being the Appellate Authority took the entire material into consideration while passing the order. Importantly, in the grounds of appeal, the petitioner did not make any grievance that he had not been afforded due opportunity of personal hearing/representation or that the principles of natural justice stood violated. He had only requested for hearing before the Appellate Authority, which was duly afforded to him as is evident from the order itself. The penalty imposed is minor. In my view, the issuance of show cause notice is in sufficient compliance of Rule 16(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules. Hence, the sole contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that principles of natural justice stand violated is not correct. The scope of interference by this Court under Article 226 is limited. This Court shall not act as an Appellate Authority and go into the merits of the matter unless of course, the findings are perverse and it shocks the conscious of the Court. This is not so. No other point urged. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. April 7, 2009. (rana)