IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 11452 of 2008. Decided on: 22.12.2010. __________________________________________________________ Kali Dass. … Petitioner. Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation. … Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. M.A. Khan, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, J. (oral): Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. Inquiry Officer was appointed. He submitted the inquiry report to the disciplinary authority. It is not borne out from the record whether the copy of the same was supplied to the petitioner. However, the petitioner was served with show cause notice vide memorandum dated 14th October, 1994. He furnished reply to the same on 5.11.1994. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect upon the petitioner vide Annexure A-1, dated 20.2.1995. A bare perusal of Annexure A-1, dated 20.2.1995 reveals that the reply filed by the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - petitioner has not been considered in its right perspective. Merely stating that the reply has been considered is not due compliance of the principles of natural justice. Once the reply has been filed, all the grounds/pleas raised in the same are required to be taken into consideration before the final decision is taken. This is lacking in this case. 2. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-1, dated 20.2.1995 is quashed and set aside. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. The petitioner shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. December 22, 2010. (sck).