13.3.2009 Present: Mr. K. D. Shreedhar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. CWP(T) No. 3063/08 (OA 451/96) The petitioner, who was working as Conductor was removed from service in terms of office order dated 18.3.1993 The charge of misconduct being that he collected fare amounting to Rs. 84/- from the passengers but, however, did not issue/punch ticket. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and he was heard in accordance with law. The order of removal was assailed by him in appropriate proceedings before appropriate forums and one such proceeding being OA No. 600 of 1993 before the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. In terms of order dated 7.4.1993 the Tribunal rejected the original application. However, liberty was given to the petitioner to file an appeal before the competent authority. It is undisputed fact that other similarly situated persons had also approached the Tribunal wherein similar directions had also been passed being OA Nos. 236/1995 titled as Narinder Kumar V. HRTC, 375/1995 titled as Mohd. Naziz v. HRTC & Ors., 398/1995 titled as Narem Lal v. HRTC & Ors. and 699/1995 titled as Dine Nath V. HRTC & Ors. It is also evident from the record shown in the Court that all of the petitioners in the aforesaid OAs were reinstated -2- subject to certain terms and conditions and imposition of minor penalties. However, only in the case of petitioner, the respondents discriminated and did not pass any order. This order has been assailed inter alia on the grounds that: (a) That the authority did not have competence to pass the order of removal; (b) the petitioner has been unfairly discriminated; (c) the penalty imposed is disproportionate, harsh and excessive to the charge. There is nothing on record from which it can be made out as to why the petitioner was discriminated. It is a settled principle of law that the Wednesbury principle has now given way to the doctrine of proportionality. The respondents are directed to decide the petitioner’s appeal keeping in view the aforesaid contentions made by the learned counsel as also the orders passed in the cases of similar situated persons. The order shall be passed after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Needless to add the decision shall be by a speaking order and in accordance with law. It shall be open for the petitioner to place such material including the latest decisions of the Apex Court before the appropriate authority hearing the matter. Needless to add, the matter pertains to the year 1996. The respondents shall take a decision within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the additional material as may -3- be placed by the petitioner. Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, learned counsel for the petitioner informs that the additional material shall be positively placed within a period of four weeks from today. The petition is disposed of accordingly. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. March 13, 2009 (PK)