IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T)No. 6315 of 2008 Date of decision: 3.8.2010 Parma Nand .. Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. & Ors. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. For the Petitioner : None for the petitioner. For the respondents : Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The petitioner challenges Annexures PH and PJ orders passed in respect of disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. Since the factual background and the justification are referred to and explained in the reply-affidavit, it will be profitable to refer to the same. It is stated in the preliminary objection as follows:- 2 “The applicant Shri Parma Nand, Forest Guard was charge sheeted vide memo. No. 2894 dated 31.5.96 under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 for negligence in performance of Govt. duty. Shri Khem Singh Sen, FR, RO. Pandoh was appointed as Inquiry Officer vide Office order No. 103/96-97 dated 31.8.96. The Inquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report vide charge leveled against the applicant was proved and Disciplinary Authority had imposed penalty of stoppage of two increments. The applicant had filed an appeal against the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority before C.F. Mandi vide his letter No. Nil dated 2.9.1997 which was rejected under the Rules as per merit of the case.” 2. Further in paragraph 6(iii) it is stated as follows: “iii)The contents of this para are denied. Facts are that applicant was charge-sheeted and charges were proved which read as “charges as leveled against the delinquent official regarding negligence of Govt. duty are proved” Show cause Notice was issued as per rules and delinquent official had never applied for copy of enquiry report. There is no violation of articles 311(2) of the Constitution and also of Rule 16(7) of the CCA Rules, 1965 as applicant was provided with every reasonable opportunity. He had also made appeal against the orders which was duly considered and was 3 rejected. Penalty as imposed is correct. Application is without any merit and deserves to be dismissed in the interest of justice.” 4. In the nature of charges alleged against him and proved in the enquiry and in view of the substantial compliance of the principles of natural justice and in view of the absence of any contention regarding prejudice caused in not supplying the copy of the enquiry report, we do not find any procedural irregularity. The punishment/stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect imposed is not disproportionate when compared to the gravity of the allegations raised against the petitioner and proved in the enquiry. We do no find any merit in the writ petition, the same is dismissed. The petition stands disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. Copy dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. August 3, 2010 (Justice Kuldip Singh), (GR/Vt) Judge.