IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 5071 of 2008 (OA No. 821/1998) Judgment reserved on: 15.10.2009 Date of decision: 2.12.2009. Ram Gopal …Petitioner. Versus H.R.T.C. and others ....Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. S.R.Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. Kuldip Singh, Judge The petitioner has prayed for quashing of office order dated 26.5.1997 Annexure A-2 whereby the disciplinary authority had imposed penalty of stoppage of one annual increment without cumulative effect for a period of one year and the petitioner shall get only subsistence allowance for the period of suspension w.e.f. 18.12.1993 to 22.7.1996. In alternative, prayer has been made for a direction to the respondents to pay subsistence allowance to the petitioner w.e.f. 18.12. 1993 to 22.7.1996. The petitioner has also prayed that respondents may also be directed to give annual increments to the petitioner excepting for one year as per Annexure 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? yes 2 A-2. The petitioner has also prayed for direction to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the arrears of amount, referred above. 2. The material facts are that petitioner while working as conductor was charge-sheeted under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 on 10.1.1994. The allegation against the petitioner was that he attempted to embezzle Rs. 57/- of the Corporation by carrying one passenger without ticket in Delux Bus No. HP-07-1447. The other allegation was that the petitioner was negligent in the performance of legitimate duty. The Inquiry Officer recorded a finding that charge No.1 has not been proved, but regarding charge No.2, the Inquiry Officer has held that the conductor (petitioner) had been negligent in performance of his duty. 3. The respondent No.3 without assigning any reason held petitioner guilty of charge and imposed penalty of with-holding one increment without cumulative effect and payment of subsistence allowance for the period 18.12.1993 to 22.7.1996 vide office order dated 26.5.1997 Annexure A-2. The petitioner was not paid subsistence allowance even as per office order dated 26.5.1997 Annexure A-2 for the period 18.12.1993 to 22.7.1996. It has been alleged that even though the penalty is for stoppage of one annual increment without cumulative effect for one year but the respondents have stopped all increments of the petitioner from the date of his suspension till the filing of the O.A. In the punishment order Annexure A-2, reasons have not been given. The disciplinary authority had not given to petitioner in writing the proposal to take action against him 3 nor any opportunity was given to him to make representation which is in violation of Rule 16 (a) of the CCS (CCA) Rules. 4. The petition has been contested by the respondents by filing reply. It has been alleged that petitioner was negligent in the performance of his legitimate duty and put the Corporation to loss. The petitioner is habitual offender and penalty was imposed in other cases also wherein his annual increments were stopped. Due to stoppage of increments in various cases, the increments could not be allowed to the petitioner. The order passed by the competent authority is correct. In view of interim order dated 3.6.1998, the petitioner had been given subsistence allowance w.e.f. 18.12.1993 to 22.7.1996 amounting to Rs. 44,062/- and the due increments have also been allowed to the petitioner vide order dated 6.7.1998. The petitioner has not exhausted alternative remedy. At the end, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when the departmental proceedings against a suspended employee for the imposition of a major penalty finally end with the imposition of a minor penalty, the suspension can be said to be wholly unjustified and the employee concerned should, therefore, be paid full pay and allowances for the period of suspension. In the present case, the petitioner was charge-sheeted under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 wherein the procedure has been provided for imposing of major penalty. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per order dated 26.5.1997 Annexure A-2, one annual 4 increment of the petitioner has been stopped without cumulative effect for the period of one year and, therefore, factually minor penalty has been imposed on the petitioner. In these circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to full pay and allowances for the period of suspension. The learned counsel for the petitioner has however, not supported his this contention with the aid of any rule. 6. The question involved in the present case is very limited. The charge No.2 in inquiry was proved against the petitioner and thereupon the disciplinary authority had imposed the penalty vide Annexure A-2. The disciplinary authority did not disagree with the inquiry report therefore no separate detailed reasons were required in the punishment order Annexure A-2. The petitioner has not pointed out any procedural illegality in the inquiry except alleged violation of Rule 16 (a) of CCS (CCA) Rules. The Rule 16 is meant for procedure for imposing minor penalties. The inquiry against the petitioner was conducted under Rule 14, therefore, Rule 16 (a) is not applicable in the present case. The petitioner has already been paid subsistence allowance w.e.f. 18.12.1993 to 22.7.1996 amounting to Rs. 44,062/- and due annual increments have also been allowed to the petitioner vide order dated 6.7.1998 as per reply of the respondents. The major part of the relief prayed by the petitioner has already been granted to the petitioner by respondents. The petitioner in the alternative has prayed for payment of subsistence allowance which has already been paid to petitioner as stated by respondents in their reply. The petitioner has failed to make out any case for quashing the office 5 order dated 26.5.1997 Annexure A-2. There is no merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. ( Kuldip Singh ), December 2, 2009. Judge. (GR)