IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 175 of 2008. Decided on: 22.03.2010. __________________________________________________________ Shri Chander Kant. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner : Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral): The petitioner was considered for regularization to the post of Beldar with effect from 1.1.1995. However, the show cause notice was served on the petitioner on 17th August, 2002 calling upon him to file the reply within 15 days why his services should not be regularised with effect from 1.1.1999. He filed detailed reply to the same vide Annexure P-2, dated 29th August, 2002. The Superintending Engineer, Irrigation and Public Health Circle, Sundernagar issued office order dated 29th June, 2007 whereby the appointment letter issued in favour of the petitioner, dated 11th September, 1996 was withdrawn and modified to the extent that the regularization of the petitioner was made with effect 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - from 1.1.1999. He challenged this order before the learned H.P. Administrative Tribunal by way of Original Application No. 245 of 2007. The learned H.P. Administrative Tribunal disposed of the original application by issuing the following directions:- “At the request of learned counsel for the applicant and in the peculiar circumstances of the case, this Original Application itself is directed to be treated as representation to the Engineer in Chief, I & PH, Shimla with direction to decide the same within a period of three months from the date of this order` after giving a personal hearing to the appellant. The Engineer-in-Chief concerned is further directed to consider this fact that Annexure P-1 which is show cause notice has been issued to the applicant without associating the applicant with the inquiry.” Thereafter fresh office order was issued vide letter dated 8th November, 2007. The representation made by the petitioner was rejected. The learned Additional Advocate General was directed to seek instructions whether any regular inquiry was initiated against the petitioner or not. Mr. Dogra, learned Additional Advocate General has fairly submitted that only preliminary inquiry was conducted. Preliminary inquiry cannot be a substitute for regular inquiry. Mr. Dogra has undertaken on the basis of instructions imparted to him by Mr. H.K. Sharma, Additional Assistant Engineer that a regular inquiry will be instituted against the petitioner. Accordingly, in view of this undertaking, the impugned Annexure P-5, dated 8th November, 2007 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are permitted to proceed with the matter in accordance with law by holding a regular inquiry. - 3 - With the above observations, the petition is disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. March 22, 2010. (sck).