IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 9098 of 2008 Decided on : 08.03.2.2011 Subhash Chand ..… Petitioner. Versus The Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation and others …… Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. C.N. Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Adharsh Sharma, Advocate V.K.Sharma, Judge (Oral) The petition has been filed on the following prayers vide para 7(1), (2) and (3) :- “(1) The removal orders vide Annexure A-1 and A-2 be set aside. (2) That the respondents be directed to re engage the applicant with all consequential benefits or afresh as has been done in case of similar employees as per para 6(viii) of the OA with all consequential benefits. (3) Alternatively, the penalty disproportionate may be directed to be modified in view the submissions in grounds (6 viii) and the settled law 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 and the applicant be alternatively reinstated or retire with pension etc. forthwith.” 2. The respondents have taken the following stand vide paras 3 (i), (ii) and 6(viii) of their reply:- “3(i). Contents of the OA are denied. The removal of the applicant on 5.7.1996 (A-3) was valid and in accordance with the law. Since the inquiry and the removal orders were issued in accordance with law and on the basis of evidence, the same are to be upheld. (ii) Contents of the OA are denied and since there was no merit in the appeal dated 4.8.1996(A- 4), the same was not required to be replied to, and the same was deemed to have been rejected. Since the applicant did not submit any representation/appeal but has filed this OA, without exhausting the departmental remedy, then, the replying Corporation did not have the opportunity to consider the case of the applicant for reengagement/fresh appointment and the OA deserves dismissal. 6(viii) Contents of the OA are denied and the claim/challenge to the removal orders dated 5.7.1996 (A-3), is time barred. However, the request for reappointment/fresh appointment or for imposing a lessor penalty, in the case of the applicant, was not considered by the replying Corporation, as the applicant had approached this Hon’ble Tribunal straightway, without exhausting the departmental remedy of representation/appeal, depriving the replying Corporation of considering the above facts. Moreover, the case of the applicant for reappointment/fresh appointment/reinstatement, alike 3 other similar employees, is not maintainable “as the applicant cannot seek parity with other employees, when, each case has to be considered individually and on the basis of the peculiar facts, circumstances/records/past conduct etc. and no universal Rule can be applied, for giving reinstatement/fresh appointment” in such cases.” 3. It is seen that office order dated 26.9.2001, Annexure A-2, vide which the service appeal filed by the petitioner was disposed of is a non-speaking order and thus legally untenable, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank and others, (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 570. 4. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. Consequently, the impugned office order dated 26.9.2001, Annexure A-2, is quashed, with a direction to respondent No.1 to reconsider the appeal filed by the petitioner vide Annexure A-8 afresh in accordance with law and particularly in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment referred to here-in-above, within three months from the date of production of copy of this judgment by the petitioner. 5. The petition as also pending CMP(s), if any, stand disposed of in the above terms. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 8th March, 2011. Lsp*