IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 10146/2008 Decided on:15.12.2010 _____________________________________________ Swaru Ram. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner : Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on 11.3.1999 under rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Control, Classification and Appeal) Rules, 1965. Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) was appointed as Inquiry Officer. He submitted the report on 7.7.2001. Petitioner was called upon vide Annexure R-2 to file the reply to the inquiry report. Petitioner submitted the reply to the notice dated 2.8.2001. Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of withholding of 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 two increments with cumulative effect under rule 11 (iv) of the Central Civil Services (Control, Classification and Appeal) Rules, 1965. Petitioner preferred an appeal against the same. It was rejected on 17.9.2003. 2. Mr. Dilip Sharma has strenuously argued that the Inquiry Officer has absolved his client of all the charges and if the Disciplinary Authority had to disagree with the inquiry report, he was required to record his tentative reasons and the same were required to be supplied to the petitioner to enable him to make a representation against the same and only thereafter the Disciplinary Authority could take final decision. He has also contended that the penalty of withholding of two increments cumulatively is a major penalty and is not stipulated under rule 11 (iv) of the Central Civil Services (Control, Classification and Appeal) Rules, 1965. 3. Mr. P.M. Negi has supported the order dated 5.10.2001 and appellate order dated 17.9.2003. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 5. Petitioner has been absolved by the Inquiry Officer. The operative portion of the inquiry report reads thus: 3 “The omission by the delinquent does not appear to have been done deliberately but it appears to have been occurred due to rush of work. The statements of Shri Hari Singh, prosecution witness, Shri Swaru Ram delinquent employee and Ex. PW/A and Ex.PW/B are attached herewith.” 6. Petitioner had been permitted to file a representation against the inquiry report vide notice dated 2.8.2001. He has averred in the reply that the mistake has happened due to rush of work assigned to him. Rather these were also the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, extracted hereinabove. In case the petitioner has been absolved by the Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority was required to record its tentative reasons for disagreeing with the inquiry report and these reasons were required to be supplied to the petitioner to enable him to make a representation against the same and only thereafter the final findings could be recorded. This procedure has not been complied with by the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority has also committed illegality by imposing major penalty of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect upon the petitioner under rule 11 (iv) of the Central Civil Services (Control, Classification and Appeal) Rules, 1965. Rule 11 (iv) of the Central Civil Services (Control, 4 Classification and Appeal) Rules, 1965 talks of imposition of withholding of increments but not cumulatively. 7. In view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexures P-11 and P-12 dated 5.10.2001 and 17.9.2003, respectively are quashed and set aside. However, it shall be open to the respondents to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 15.12.2010 *awasthi*