IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 2282/2008 (OA 876/1994) Date of Decision : August 11, 2009 Sh. Dilbagh Singh Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others. Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Sunil Chaudhary, Advocate vice Mr. Tarlok Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the respondents : Mr. R. K. Sharma, Senior Addl. Advocate General with Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. Advocate General and Mr. J. S. Rana, Astt. Advocate General for the respondents. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Vide judgment dated 30.4.1982 petitioner along with other officials was convicted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, H.P. in case No. 331-1 of 80/97-2 of 80, titled as State versus Dilbagh Singh and another. The conviction was under Section 381 IPC. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and also pay fine. Petitioner assailed the same before this Court and in terms of judgment dated 31.12.1984 passed in Cr. Rev. No. 108 of 1983, 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 titled as Dilbag Singh and another versus State of Himachal Pradesh the order of conviction was upheld but however taking into account the peculiar circumstances he was released on probation. Thereafter vide letter dated 11.1.1985 (Annexure A-4) petitioner submitted his joining report to the Superintending Engineer, Kullu which was turned down vide letter dated 1.5.1985 (Annexure A-5). Since then the petitioner has been repeatedly writing to the respondents, i.e. the Secretary/the Minister/the Chief Engineer expressing his grievance and requesting for review of the decision dated 1.5.1985. It is evident from letters dated 27.5.1985 (Annexure A-6), 14.8.1985 (Annexure A-7), 18.11.1985 (Annexure A-8), 3.3.1986 (Annexure A-9), 10.9.1986 (Annexure A-10), 16.1.1987 (Annexure A-11), 6.6.1988 (Annexure A-12), 26.8.1989 (Annexure A-13), 28.3.1991 (Annexure A-14), 25.5.1993 (Annexure A-15), 22.9.1993 (Annexure A-16) and 15.1.1994 (Annexure A-17). Regretfully none of these letters were responded to by the respondents and eventually vide letter dated 31.3.1994 petitioner wrote to the Chief Engineer (North), HP PWD inter alia stating that prior to passing of the order of dismissal no inquiry was ever conducted against him and as such principles of natural justice stood violated. Further with regard to three other persons who were similarly situated and convicted simultaneously, a lenient view was taken which in the case of the petitioner, for reasons best know to 3 the respondents was not taken. In effect the petitioner alleged arbitrariness on the part of State. The petitioner’s representations were finally decided by the respondents vide letter dated 7.6.1994 which is reproduced in its entirety as under: “From Chief Engineer (North), Himachal Pradesh, PWD., Dharamshala – 176215. To Shri Dilbagh Singh Ex-Clerk Shastri Nagar, Kullu, Himachal Pradesh. Subject: Appeal against dismissal order passed by the Superintending Engineer, 6th Circle, HP. PWD- Kullu dated 31.5.1982. The appeal preferred vide your letter dated 31st March 1994 has been considered and is hereby rejected as the above appeal has been preferred by you at the belated stage which is not with-in the purview of C.C.S. (CC&A) Rules 1965. Encl: Nil. Chief Engineer (North) Himachal Pradesh, PWD., Dharamshala – 176215.” Evidently the order rejecting the petitioner’s appeal is cryptic and non speaking. It has not even considered the contentions raised by him. It is not as though an appeal was filed in the year 1994 itself. The authorities totally ignored the fact that the petitioner had been representing continuously since the year 1986 hence rejection of the appeal on the ground that it is highly belated is contrary to the record. There has been total non application of mind. 4 On this short ground the impugned order dated 7.6.1994 is quashed. As agreed by Mr. R. K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General the respondents are directed to decide the petitioner’s appeal on merits, after affording due opportunity of hearing to him, within a period of four months from the date of the receipt of the certified copy. It shall be open for the respondent-State to take action in accordance with law and after taking into account the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Gulzar versus State of M.P., (2007) 1 SCC 619; Harichand versus Director of School Education, (1998) 2 SCC 383; Punjab Water Supply Sewerage Board and another versus Ram Sajivan and another, (2007) 9 SCC 86; Shankar Dass versus Union of India and another, (1985) 2 SCC 358; Hari Pada Khan versus Union of India and others, (1996) 1 SCC 536; Ajit Kumar Nag versus General Manager (PJ), Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., Haldia and others, (2005) 7 SCC 764; State of Madhya Pradesh and others versus Hazarilal, (2008) 3 SCC 273 and Karam Singh versus State of Punjab and another, (1996) 7 SCC 748. It is clarified that no views have been expressed on the respective contentions raised by the parties on merits. The petition is allowed with the aforesaid observations. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. August 11, 2009 (PK) 5