IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.: 4878 of 2010 Date of decision: 22.11.2010 Yog Raj … Petitioner. Versus H.P.State Forest Corporation and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr.P.D.Nanda and Mr. J.R.Gazta, Advocates. For the respondents No. 1 to 2: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.A.G. For the respondent No.3: Mr. Virbhadur Verma vice Mr. Bhupender Thakur, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) 1. The petitioner was working as a driver in the respondent-corporation and he was charge-sheeted for having entered into a second marriage in violation of the conduct rules. 2. It was alleged that despite being earlier married to Shanti Devi he had entered into an illegal liaison with one Smt. Rekha Devi and out of this relationship a son had also been born. An inquiry report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer in which though it was found that the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 department had failed to prove that second marriage was actually solemnized, the Inquiry Officer came to the conclusion that misconduct was proved since the petitioner had entered into a relationship with Rekha Devi. A child was born out of this relationship and in various records including the record of the Corporation itself the petitioner had shown Rekha Devi to be his wife. By now, the law is well settled that long standing association between a man and a woman can also lead to presumption of marriage. 3. Be that as it may, the fact is that after the Inquiry Officer submitted his report the petitioner made a representation that certain documents submitted by him had not been considered by the Inquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority issued an order on 28.3.2009 indicating that it does not agree with the inquiry report of the Inquiry Officer and feels that re-inquiry/examination of the case is necessary and some other officer should be appointed to give proper findings. Shri D.S.Thakur, HPFS, Divisional Manager, Forest 3 Working Division, Mandi was appointed as Inquiry Officer to proceed with the Inquiry. This order was withdrawn on 2.6.2009 without giving any reason and simply stating that the order appointing Shri D.S.Thakur is withdrawn. Thereafter, the services of the petitioner have been terminated vide impugned order dated 30.07.2010. 4. In my view the order dated 2.6.2009 is not legal. Once the Disciplinary Authority had come to a finding that it did not agree with the report of the Inquiry Officer and further inquiry was necessary such order could not have been withdrawn that too without giving any reasons. On this short point the petition is allowed and the order dated 2.6.2009 and consequently the termination order dated 30.07.2010 are quashed. The termination of the services of the petitioner is set-aside. It is, however, clarified that respondent-Corporation shall proceed with the inquiry proceedings in furtherance to the order dated 28.3.2009. In case Shri D.S.Thakur, HPFS, DM Mandi, for any reason, cannot be appointed 4 as Inquiry Officer, some other officer shall be appointed in his place. This officer has only to reappraise the evidence and no fresh evidence is required to be led before him. The petitioner is directed to ensure that he is available in the inquiry proceedings and in case he in any manner tries to delay the inquiry proceedings or absents himself from the same he shall do so at his own risk. The Inquiry Officer to be appointed now shall submit his report latest by 20th February, 2011 and the disciplinary authority shall take appropriate action on the same within one month thereafter. The writ petition is disposed in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. 22nd November, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.