IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) 10042 of 2008. Decided on: September 27, 2011. Brij Paul Singh …Petitioner. Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation & anther …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner Mr. Adarsh K. Vashishta, Advocate. For the respondents Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioner had been working as driver, with HRTC, in January, 2000, when he allegedly drove a bus in a negligent manner, as a result of which, engine of the bus seized, on account of which, owner of the bus namely, HRTC, respondent No. 1 herein, had to spend a sum of about `25,000/-. He was charge sheeted for the aforesaid act of negligent driving and also some other acts of dereliction of duty, which had taken place in the years 1991, 1992 and 1996. Copy of Inquiry Report was supplied to him, to which he made Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o s ee t he j udgment ? - 2 - a representation. Disciplinary Authority set aside the inquiry report and a fresh inquiry was ordered, vide Annexure A-6. One Shri Raj Kumar, Works Manager, was appointed as Inquiry Officer. Said Raj Kumar conducted fresh inquiry and submitted a report. On receipt of that report, impugned order, Annexure A-1, which is dated 27.6.2003, was passed and recovery of a sum of Rs.10,800/- was ordered to be effected from the salary of the petitioner, in monthly installments of ` 900/- each. Petitioner has challenged this order of punishment, Annexure A-1. It is alleged that the order was passed without supplying copy of Inquiry Report, submitted by said Raj Kumar and, thus, the petitioner did not have any opportunity to make representation against the findings of said Inquiry Officer. 3. In reply, it is not denied that copy of inquiry report, submitted by said Raj Kumar, was not supplied to the petitioner before impugned order, Annexure A-1, was passed. Without supplying a copy of the inquiry report and affording the petitioner an opportunity to make representation against the finding of the inquiry officer, Disciplinary Authority could not have lawfully passed the order of accepting the inquiry report and then punishing the petitioner. Hence, impugned order is set aside and it is ordered that the amount of ` 10,800/-, or any part of it, if - 3 - already recovered from the petitioner, shall be refunded to him. Disposed of. September 27, 2011 (PC) ( Surjit Singh ), J..