IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 2098 of 2010. Decided on: 18th October, 2010. Med Ram Sharma. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of H.P. and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. Ramakant Sharma and Mr. Rajiv Sood, Advocates. For the respondents. : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 vide Annexure P-1, dated 03.08.1996. Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that though the disciplinary proceedings were initiated on 03.08.1996, however, the same have not been concluded till date. It has come in the reply that now the enquiry report has been submitted by the Enquiry Officer to the Disciplinary Authority on 24.5.2010. 2. In view of this, as per the principles laid down by Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Managing Director, ECIL Versus B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727, the Disciplinary Authority is directed to supply the copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner to enable him to make a representation 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.No. against the same. The Disciplinary Authority after taking into consideration the representation made by the petitioner against the enquiry report and also after looking into Annexure P-4, dated 16.06.1997, shall pass appropriate orders. The orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority must be speaking and reasoned. 3. Mr. Rajiv Sood, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as far as the enquiry instituted on the basis of Annexure P-5, dated 3rd September, 2008 is concerned, the Enquiry Officer has submitted the report to the Disciplinary Authority. However, the Disciplinary Authority without recording his tentative reasons, has disagreed with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. If that is so, the Disciplinary Authority shall supply the tentative opinion to the petitioner to enable him to make a representation and only thereafter, the final decision will be taken by the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority shall take into consideration the law laid down by Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank & Ors. Versus K.K. Verma, 2010(9) Scale 107. Consequently, both the enquiries instituted against the petitioner vide Annexures P-1, dated 03.08.1996 and P-5, dated 03.09.2008 will be concluded within a period of six weeks from today. It is made clear that in the eventuality of the petitioner being exonerated/absolved of the charges, he shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits, including promotion etc. and the proceedings initiated against him vide Annexure P-7, dated 06.01.2010 shall also be closed. 4. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs. Copy dasti, on usual terms. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge October 18, 2010. (bhupender)