IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 6316 of 2008. Decided on: 22.9.2011. Duni Chand .…Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another … Respondents. _____________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : None. For the respondents : Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy. Advocate General. V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral) On the last date of hearing (13.6.2011), the petitioner was present in the Court in person. On that day, he had stated that he has instructed Mr. M.A. Khan, Advocate, to conduct the petition on his behalf. However, as per report of the Registry, Mr. M.A. Khan, Advocate has not filed power of attorney despite several opportunities having been granted. 2. The petition has been filed on the following prayers, vide para 7 (a) and (b):- (a) To quash & set-aside the impugned order at Annexure ‘PA’ dated 3.4.99; (b) To allow attendant benefits to the applicant flowing out of setting- aside the impugned order dt. 3.4.99.” 3. In reply, the respondents have taken the following stand, vide para 6 (iv),(v), (ix) and (x):- “Para 6(iv):- That the applicant was charge sheeted under Rule-14 of CCS(CCA) Rules-1965 and he had denied the charges made against him in the charge sheet, a copy of which annexed to the O.A. and marked as PB., hence it was mandatory to institute an Inquiry against the charged official. Sh. Ranjit Singh Thakur, who was appointed as presenting 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 officer was well conversant with the facts of case and thus he was appointed as presenting officer. It is also made clear that neither Sh. Ranjit Singh Thakur Presenting Officer is a legal person nor he was listed as PW in this case. Therefore the objection/representation of the applicant to change the presenting officer was neither valid nor justified in the eyes of laws, which was rightly rejected. Para 6 (v):- That the contents of this para are wrong and denied. In fact an opportunity of engaging defence Assistant to the applicant was given by the Inquiry Officer at the time of preliminary hearing. Which is apparent from his written statement before the inquiry officer given on 27.6.95, a copy of which is annexed to this reply and marked as R-1 and English translation at R-1/T. Para 6 (ix):- That the applicant was supplied a copy of the enquiry report vide memo dated 26.12.98 and was given opportunity of making representation, if so desired against the findings of the enquiry officer within a period of 15 days. The applicant submitted his representation dated 17.2.99 which was duly considered by the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority carefully gone through the enquiry report and found that the applicant had been given opportunity for engaging defence Asstt. and also to give a list of documents required in support of his defence, but he did not avail the said opportunities. Moreover, he did not make any representation against the Inquiry Officer. As such the enquiry report was found in order and in accordance with the rules. Accordingly disciplinary authority has accepted the findings of the inquiry report and rejected the representation of the applicant. Para 6 (x):-That the contention of the applicant that the findings of the Inquiry Officer in respect of charge No.1 and No.3 are based on conjectures and surmises is wrong. In fact these charges have been proved on the basis of material of evidence and witnesses adduced before the Inquiry Officer as is clear from the inquiry report. It is further made clear that the applicant was posted in Govt. Ayurvedic Dispensary, Utpur in 1/90 and remained posted there till 5/95. He had also worked as in charge of the Dispensary w.e.f. 1/90 to 10/90 due to non-posting of A.C.A. as admitted himself in his written statement given before the Inquiry Officer on 22.4.96. The stock of the medicines generally remains under the charge of the Pharmacist, and he was supposed to supply the list of available medicines to the Doctors concerned enabling him to prescribe the same. The Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari is not competent to give TA/DA to the staff working under him but it is only the Distt. Ayurvedic Officer who can give such allowance and the applicant should have approached him in case of his grievances regarding non payment of TA/DA. The applicant has been given sufficient opportunities to defend his case, but he failed to avail the same. He could have raised such points before the Inquiry Officer during the course of Inquiry. This was a disciplinary proceeding and strict mode of proof prescribed by the Evidence Act can not apply. Under charge No.3 apart from over-writing charge of fictitious entries made in the relevant stock registers was leveled against him which have been high lighted page-wise and date-wise in the inquiry report. Which proved that the inquiry officer has gone through the depth of the charge and made his findings on the basis of the records/evidences. As such the findings of the Inquiry Officer are valid and justified.” 4 In view of the above reply, in case the petitioner still has any surviving grievance with respect to factual or legal aspects of the matter, he may make a representation along with copy of this judgment to the respondents/competent authority within one month from today, who shall 3 consider and decide the same within next two months in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, if so desired. 5 The petition stands disposed of, so also pending CMP(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma), Judge. 22nd September, 2011 (Krn Guleria)