IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 7059 of 2008. Decided on: 24.2.2011. Prakash Chand .....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and ors. ….. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Sanjay Karol, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr.Dilip Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. R.M. Bisht, Dy. Advocate General. For the Respondent No.3 : None. Sanjay Karol, J (Oral) While officiating as Patwari disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority, based on the findings returned by the Inquiry Officer, which were returned after fully complying with the principles of natural justice and adhering to the procedure prescribed by law, culminated in the passing of the order of imposition of penalty. Vide order dated 5th December, 1996 (Annexure A-7) petitioner was imposed the penalty of withholding of four annual increments with cumulative effect. Petitioner is held guilty of having misconduct himself. The delinquent official had partly exceeded and partly failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him. He failed to take appropriate action in relation to 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes - 2 - preparation of revenue record. In appeal preferred by the petitioner, the Divisional Commissioner remanded the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner in terms of order dated 12th February, 1998 ( Annexure A-8) and on remand the Deputy Commissioner reaffirmed the penalty vide order dated 30th April, 1998 (Annexure A- 9). Being dissatisfied, petitioner again approached the Divisional Commissioner and in terms of order dated 7th March, 2000 (Annexure A-10) penalty was reduced from withholding of four increments with cumulative effect to only withholding four increments without cumulative effect. 2. Having gone through the record, I am of the considered view that principle of natural justice have been fully adhered to in the entire process of conduct of disciplinary proceedings. There is no violation of any provisions of law either. The challenge to the impugned orders is on the ground that the action was malafidely initiated by the private respondent No.3. No doubt private respondent has not come forward to refute the same but however the State has specifically denied the same. That apart, even otherwise the basis and grounds of malafide acts cannot be said to be fully established on record. The Divisional Commissioner, after carefully scrutinizing the entire record had also come to the conclusion that the officers of the revenue department were guilty of having misconduct themselves. On scrutiny, I find no merit in the present Writ Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. February 24, 2011 (Sanjay Karol) (jai) Judge