IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 6134 of 2008 Decided on: 14.12.2010 Hans Raj ……..Petitioner Versus HRTC and anr. …..Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge For the petitioner: Ms. Sunita Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral): The challenge is on Annexure A-7, order passed by the respondents-Corporation, whereby penalty of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner has been converted to penalty of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect, recovery of pecuniary loss to the extent of 25% and the period of absence after the date of compulsory retirement to the date of reinstatement being treated as dies-non. Though, the case has a chequered history, the whole departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on account of the award passed by the MACT. There was also a charge regarding the petitioner being under the influence of drinks at the time of driving the vehicle. On the basis of the findings of the MACT, the petitioner was imposed punishment 2 of compulsory retirement. The petitioner filed an appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case for want of evidence. The Appellate Authority, namely, Board of Directors, considered the appeal and took a lenient view and punishment of compulsory retirement was converted to stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect and recovery of pecuniary loss to the extent of 25% in terms of the award passed by the MACT. 2. Heard the counsel on both sides. There is no justification in recovery of 25% of pecuniary loss. When the driver is acquitted in a criminal case, the Corporation has taken a decision that there shall be no recovery of any amount from the driver, in terms of the decision taken on 17.8.2007, which has been held to have retrospective operation by this Court in various judgments. Therefore, the penalty of recovery of 25% of pecuniary loss is set aside. If any amount has been withheld or recovered from the petitioner on that account, the same shall be refunded to him within three months. As far as the period of absence between compulsory retirement to the date of rejoining is concerned, the same is seen treated as dies-non. As rightly pointed out by the petitioner there is no punishment as dies-non. It appears that the Corporation intends to treat the period for the purpose of service except for actual pay and allowances. For the purpose of removal of any doubts, it is clarified that the period between the date of imposition of the compulsory retirement and date of reinstatement as per the decision, shall be treated as service for all purposes except for actual pay and other allowances, so that there is no break in 3 service and that increment, if any, due to the petitioner, will be granted to him. 3. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice (Justice V.K. Ahuja), December 14, 2010 Judge (BSS/Pankaj)