IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP (T) 9696 of 2008 Decided on: May 26, 2011 Bhim Dutt ..Petitioner. Versus State of HP and others .. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Mohan Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner was appointed as Patwari in the year 1984. He remained absent from duty from 5.9.1994 to 5.3.1995. Also, he did not prepare draft of Jamabandi for the year 1993-94. Khasra Girdawari for the said year had also not been updated. Further, a sum of `60,000/- had been entrusted to him for construction of Patwarkhana, but he did not account for the said amount of money. He was charge sheeted for the aforesaid acts of dereliction of duty. He denied the charge and, therefore, a regular departmental inquiry was ordered. Inquiry Officer held him guilty. Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? É2É 2. Disciplinary Authority, i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, then passed an order of penalty, which is Annexure A-2. As per this order, two increments of the petitioner were stopped. Order was not complied with by the Drawing and Disbursing Officer of the petitioner. 3. Petitioner challenged the order of imposition of penalty, Annexure A-2. Divisional Commissioner set aside that order, on the ground that copy of inquiry report had not been supplied to the petitioner, before passing the order of penalty nor had the petitioner been afforded opportunity to make representation against the findings of Inquiry Officer. 4. Thereafter, Deputy Commissioner supplied copy of inquiry report to the petitioner and also gave him opportunity to make representation. Petitioner submitted representation. Deputy Commissioner then passed order dated 2.12.1997, copy Annexure A-7, upholding the previous order of stoppage of two increments. Appeal was filed against that order also, before the Divisional Commissioner, which was dismissed. 5. Petitioner then filed another appeal before the Financial Commissioner, which too was dismissed, vide order dated 5.9.1998, copy Annexure A-9. Since the order of stoppage of increments had not been given effect to, by the Drawing and Disbursing Officer of the petitioner, a communication, copy Annexure A-10, which is dated É3É 7.6.2002, for recovery of the amount equivalent to the increments for two years, which was calculated at `21,838/-, was issued to the Drawing and Disbursing Officer of the petitioner. 6. Petitioner has challenged the order of his punishment and the orders of dismissal of his appeals, passed by the Divisional Commissioner as also Financial Commissioner. Also, he has challenged the communication, copy Annexure A-10, regarding recovery of a sum of `21,838/- from his salary, in monthly instalment of `1000/-. It is alleged that the order of dismissal of appeal, passed by the Financial Commissioner, Annexure A-9, is not a speaking order and hence, liable to be set aside. Order, Annexure A-10, is also alleged to be illegal. 7. In reply, filed by the respondents, it is alleged that all the orders passed in the matter are lawful. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Assistant Advocate General and gone through the record. 9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that order of punishment, copy Annexure A-7, which was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, after supplying the copy of inquiry report to the petitioner, in terms of the order of Divisional Commissioner, passed in appeal, is illegal as it confirms the previous order, copy Annexure A-2, which had been set aside. É4É 10. May be that what the learned counsel has submitted is technically correct, but in substance it is not so. What the Deputy Commissioner; or say, the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner has done, is that in stead of again writing, in his order Annexure A-7, that penalty of stoppage of two increments is imposed, he has simply made reference to earlier order of punishment, copy Annexure A-2, to say that the same penalty is re-imposed. 11. Order of Divisional Commissioner, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the order, copy Annexure A-7, has not been assailed nor has its copy been placed on record. 12. Order of Financial Commissioner, copy Annexure A-9, by which second appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed, has been challenged, on the ground that order is not a speaking one. I have seen the order. The order categorically states that entire record had been gone through by the Financial Commissioner and the comments of Divisional Commissioner had also been sought, on the grounds of appeal and it was thereafter that the order of dismissal of appeal was passed. 13. It is also the grievance of the petitioner that order, copy Annexure A-10, for recovery of a sum of `21,838/- , on account of payment of two increments to the petitioner, is illegal. There is nothing wrong with the order. Two increments of the petitioner had been stopped as a É5É measure of penalty. His Drawing and Disbursing Officer did not give effect to that order and released the increments. Deputy Commissioner has simply directed the Drawing and Disbursing Officer of the petitioner to effect recovery of money paid on account of wrongful release of increments, from the salary of the petitioner, in monthly instalments of `1000/-, each. In view of the above stated position, petition is dismissed. May 26, 2011 (ss) (Surjit Singh), J.