IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWPT No.11685 of 2008 Date of Decision: November 29, 2011 Rakesh Thakur ..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. __________________________________________ Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner is employed as a driver with the respondents. He was posted at Keylong in the year 2003, when he allegedly absented from duty. Period of alleged absence was from 4.12.2003 to 15.5.2004. Also, he was alleged to have remained absented from duty from 5.9.2004 to 25.11.2004, when impugned order, Annexure A-8, placing him under suspension, in contemplation of departmental action for the aforesaid alleged unauthorized and willful absence from duty, was passed. 2. Petitioner filed an Original Application before the then H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, seeking quashing of Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? É2É the aforesaid order, Annexure A-8. Tribunal passed an interim order on 6.1.2005, staying the operation of the impugned order of suspension. Matter remained pending with the Tribunal till its abolition in the year 2008, whereafter it came to this Court and was registered as the present Writ Petition. 3. Plea taken in the reply is that the petitioner having remained willfully and unauthorizedly absent from duty during the aforesaid two periods, departmental action was contemplated to be taken against him and, therefore, he had been placed under suspension, vide impugned order, Annexure A-8. 4. Learned counsel, representing the petitioner, submits that there is certificate Annexure A-3 by the Chairman, Zila Parishad, with whom the petitioner was deputed as driver from December, 2003 to May, 2004, to the effect that he had been on duty with her at Manali. Respondents’ plea is that the certificate is false and there is another certificate issued by the said Zila Parishad Chairman, denying the genuineness of certificate, Annexure A-3, upon which reliance is placed by the petitioner. 5. Court, in the present case, is not supposed to dwell upon the issue whether the petitioner was on duty or was wilfully absent from duty during the aforesaid periods. These are the questions to be gone into by the respondents, É3É after charge-sheeting the petitioner and holding regular departmental inquiry, in case they so desire. 6. In the present case, the Court is concerned only with the validity of the impugned order of suspension, copy Annexure A-8, which was passed in the year 2004. Operation of the order had been stayed in January, 2005 by the Tribunal. Petitioner has been continuously working since then. He has been transferred from Keylong to various place and presently he is stated to be posted in Sirmaur District. 7. In view of the above stated position, writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the respondents may proceed against the petitioner for the alleged acts of willful absence from duty and if found guilty, punish him appropriately. Order of suspension Annexure A-8 is, however, quashed, because there has been a long delay of more than 6 years in initiating the departmental action, in contemplation of which the impugned order of suspension was passed. November 29, 2011 (ss) (Surjit Singh), J.