IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWPT No.16125 of 2008 Date of Decision: September 6, 2011 Jiwan Singh ..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General for the respondents. __________________________________________ Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner had been working as a daily waged employee in Irrigation and Public Health Department, under Executive Engineer, Mandi. His services as Work Inspector/ Supervisor were regularized w.e.f. 1.1.1994, vide order dated 22.12.1994. On 17.8.2002, a show cause notice, copy Annexure P-1, was issued to him, calling upon him to show cause why his services from 1.1.1994 be not regularized as a Beldar instead of Work Inspector/ Supervisor and that regularization of his services as Inspector be not delayed upto 1.1.1998. In the said show Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? É2É cause notice, it was stated that the petitioner had, in connivance with the officials of the department, manipulated the record, showing that he had completed 10 years services as a daily wager, in the capacity of Supervisor/Work Inspector, though he started working as Work Inspector only in the year 1988, and prior to that he had been working as a Beldar. 2. Petitioner filed reply to the show cause notice on 31.8.2002, copy Annexure P-2, in which it was specifically denied that he had connived with the staff and manipulated the record. 3. Respondents took no action for quite long a time, despite the petitioner having responded to the show cause notice within time mentioned in the notice. Ultimately respondents passed an order on 29.6.2007, copy Annexure P-3, by which the order dated 22.12.1994, regularizing his services as Work Inspector, was withdrawn and he was regularized as Work Inspector w.e.f. 1.1.1998. 4. Aforesaid order, copy Annexure P-3, was challenged by the petitioner, by filing an Original Application before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. That petition was ordered to be treated as representation and Engineer-in-Chief was directed to pass a speaking order, after hearing the petitioner. Engineer-in-Chief then passed the order dated 12.11.2007, copy Annexure P-5, and rejected the representation. Petitioner then filed another É3É Original Application before the said Tribunal and on its abolition that matter has now come to this Court. It is this Original Application, which has been registered as the present CWP(T) bearing No. 16125/2008, with the Registry of this Court. 5. Petitioner has challenged the initial order of withdrawal of his regularization as Work Inspector w.e.f. 1.1.1994; copy Annexure P-3, as also the order copy Annexure P-5, whereby his representation, assailing the aforesaid order has been rejected. 6. Respondents, in their reply, have stated that it came to their notice through a reply, filed in another Original Application, that 25 persons, including the present petitioner, had wrongly been given the benefit of regularization against Class-III posts, though they had not worked against Class-III posts for the requisite length of time, i.e. 10years, with 240 days in every calendar year. It was stated that inquiry had been conducted and it came to light that the petitioner had, in fact, started working as Work Inspector (a class III post) in the year 1988, and prior to that he had been working as Beldar and, so, the initial order of his regularization as Work Inspector, was recalled and he was ordered to be regularized as Work Inspector w.e.f. 1.1.1994, when he completed 10 years service as such Inspector. É4É 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 8. Main contention of the petitioner is that without holding a regular inquiry under Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules, which as per show cause notice, copy Annexure P-1, was threatened to be conducted, impugned order regularizing his services as Work Inspector w.e.f. 1.1.1998 instead of 1.1.1994, could not have been passed. It is not in dispute that show cause notice was issued in the year 2002 and its reply was also filed in the same year, but the impugned order, recalling the order of regularization of the petitioner as Work Inspector from 1.1.1994, was withdrawn in the year 2007 or say, five years after the issuance of the show cause notice and 13 years after his regularization as Work Inspector. This order had been passed without holding a regular inquiry under Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules, which as per show cause notice, was threatened to be conducted, because of the allegation that the petitioner had connived with the staff of the department concerned to manipulate the record, to show that he had completed 10 years as a daily waged Work Inspector upto 1.1.1994. Inquiry that was conducted by the department was though pursuant to the order passed by the then H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, yet the fact remains that the petitioner had not been associated in that inquiry and, therefore, on the basis of the findings of the Inquiry Committee, petitioner could not have É5É been punished, as one of the basic principles of natural justice, i.e. affording of an opportunity of being heard, had not been complied with. 9. As a result of above stated position, petition is allowed and impugned orders Annexures P-3 and P-5 are quashed. Respondents shall, however, be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner under CCS (CCA) Rules and shall also be free to make any other inquiry for holding whether the regularization of the petitioner as Work Inspector w.e.f. 1.1.1994 was wrong, as alleged by them, but the petitioner shall be associated in such inquiry and afforded due opportunity of being heard, which includes the right of adducing evidence. Petition stands disposed of. September 6, 2011 (ss) (Surjit Singh), J.