HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 3759/2008 (OA No.1328/1996) Date of Decision: May 12, 2009 Ranjeet Singh Chandel ……. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. ….. Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumar, vice Mr. Sandeep Vashista, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Petitioner has assailed the order dated 1.2.1995 (Annexure P-2) being the sanction accorded by the respondents to proceed with the departmental proceedings in accordance with the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965. Petitioner was served with the order dated 1.2.1996 (Annexure P-3) informing him of the contemplated action which is also under challenge. The inquiry proceedings were stayed by the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal on 19.9.1996. Petitioner was working as Superintendent in the office of the Block Development Office, Kullu. He retied on 31.5.1993. The respondents discovered certain embezzlements and irregularities having been committed by him and one Shri Padam Singh Katoch. Respondents, vide Annexure P-2 accorded sanction in accordance with Rule 9 Sub Section (2) (b) of the Rules, perusal of which shows that for the period 6.8.1979 upto 31.5.1993, 2 petitioner failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion of duty and embezzled/misappropriated a sum of Rs.1,55,000/-. The challenge is on the ground that no sanction with respect to an event which had taken place more than 4 years after the retirement or initiation of action could have been accorded in accordance with the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. The respondents, in their reply, have given the details of the period for which the petitioner is alleged to have embezzled the amount and committed the charged misconduct. The same is reproduced as under:- “Charge No.1. An amount of Rs.62800/- was drawn on 19.1.93 and 28.1.93. Charge No.2. An amount of Rs.2138/- was drawn on 28.11.1.92. Charge No.3. Embezzlement of Rs.225/-, payment was drawn on 31.3.93 as fixed T.A. Charge No. 4 & 5 Pertains to period 29.5.93. Charge No. 6 Pertains to period 31.7.91. Charge No. 8 Pertains to period 11.10.91. Charge No. 9 Pertains to period 6.9.79. Charge No. 10 Pertains to period 13.1.90 to 4.6.91.” The sanction, inter alia pertains to only one charge for the period 1979, rest all other charges, being nine in number pertain to the period 1991 upto 1993. Sanction accorded by the authorities, except in the 3 case of charge No.9 is in accordance with the Rules. With respect to charge No. 9 pertaining to the period 1979, respondents themselves have stated that the same could have been considered during the course of the inquiry. Simply because the sanction with respect to one charge out of ten, pertains to the year 1979, that fact by itself would not vitiate the sanction accorded by the respondents-authorities. It is not a case of total non-application of mind, though the authorities ought to have been more careful in considering the material on record before according the said sanction. Necessity of initiating departmental proceedings arose on the compliant which was investigated by the Audit Party. In any event, no prejudice is being caused to the petitioner by according sanction for the period 1979. The petitioner can take-up the issue during the course of disciplinary proceedings. Hence, Annexure P-2 cannot be quashed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to raise all contentions in the disciplinary proceedings, in accordance with law. The interim order dated 19.9.1996 is vacated. Petitioner shall co-operate in the inquiry proceedings and the respondents are directed to conclude the disciplinary proceedings and take all consequential action, in accordance with law, within a period of six months from today. For the aforesaid reasons, the present petition is disposed of. Assistance rendered by Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate is highly appreciable. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. May 12, 2009 (rana)