IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 9120 of 2008 Date of Decision : July 21, 2010 Milap Chand Petitioner Versus State of H.P. Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the respondent : Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Dy. Advocate General for the respondent. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The petitioner was charge sheeted and held guilt for having misconducted during the course of his employment. The disciplinary authority imposed penalty by reverting the petitioner from Senior Assistant to Junior Assistant vide order dated 27.3.2001. Undoubtedly petitioner was due for retirement three days thereafter. 2. Petitioner preferred an appeal which stands rejected in terms of order dated 18.2.2002 (Annexure R-II) which reads as under:- “Shri Milap Chand, Sr. Assistant, office of the Sub-Divisional Officer (C) Jaisinghpur,Distt. Kangra has filed an appeal in this office against the order of Deputy Commissioner, Kangra dated 27.3.2001 whereby a Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 penalty of reduction to the lower post of Jr. Assistant had been imposed upon him. I have gone through the grounds of appeal and comments offered by the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra. The appellant was charge-sheeted under rule- 14 of the CCS(CC&A) Rule-1965 for accepting undue money/gratification, keeping the warrant of recovery without any action and disobeying the order of the Sub- Divisional Officer, Jaisinghpur. I have also perused Report of the Inquiry conducted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Palampur. The Inquiry Officer has proved all the charges against the appellant and the delinquent official in his own statement has himself admitted the charge of accepting the undue money. I have also heard the appellant on 18.2.2002. At the time of personal hearing the appellant could not produce any oral or documentary evidence in his defence to refute the charges. Therefore, keeping in view the position explained above, I find no ground to interfere with the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra which has been passed by him after due consideration of the facts. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. The above order be communicated to the appellant through Deputy Commissioner, Kangra. The record received in this case may also be returned.” 3. Noticeably before the appellate authority petitioner had raised several grounds, including violation of the principles of natural justice and non consideration of request for extension of time for filing reply to the report. While passing the aforesaid order the 3 appellate authority has neither considered nor adverted to the same. 4. On this short ground alone, as has been prayed for by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order dated 18.2.2002 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the appellate authority for consideration of the petitioner’s appeal afresh. Needless to add the authorities shall decide the appeal after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. A reasoned order shall be passed, copy of which shall be supplied to the petitioner. While deciding, the appellate authority shall also take into account the fact that petitioner stands retired since March, 2001. The respondents are directed to do the needful within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. 5. Petition stands disposed of. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. July 21, 2010 (PK)