IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) 12319/2008. Date of Decision : 29.3.2010. Sh.Sant Ram …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. .. ..Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma,Judge. Whether approved for reporting?No. For the petitioner :Mr.Onkar Jairath, Advocate For the respondents :Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. Advocate General. __________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma ,J(Oral). Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on 9th April, 1999 under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. He filed reply to the same. Inquiry Officer was appointed. He submitted the report to the Disciplinary Authority vide Annexure:A13. According to him, none of the charges listed in the chargesheet were proved against the petitioner. The inquiry report was furnished somewhere in the month of July, 2002. The Disciplinary Authority did not take any action on the inquiry report. It was only after the intervention of the learned State Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 46 of 2005 preferred by the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority acted upon. ________________ Whether reports of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 The Disciplinary Authority issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 19.1.2005. He submitted reply to the same. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of recovery of Rs.5160/- upon the petitioner vide order dated 31.3.2005. Mr. Onkar Jairath has vehemently argued that the Disciplinary Authority without recording tentative reasons has dis-agreed with the inquiry report as per show cause notice dated 19.1.2005. Mr. Dogra has supported the imposition of penalty. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. The petitioner was exonerated by the Inquiry Officer. The Disciplinary Authority sat over the inquiry report for long three years. The decision has to be taken by the Disciplinary Authority on the basis of the inquiry report as per Rule 15 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 and the Instructions issued thereunder. However, the fact of the matter is that the Disciplinary Authority dis-agreed with the inquiry report without recording his tentative reasons of disagreement. The purpose of recording of tentative reasons is to enable the delinquent to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the inquiry report. In the present case, this has not been done. Accordingly, the imposition of penalty vide office order dated 31.3.2005 (Annexure:A15) is declared bad in law. There is violation of the principle of natural justice. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure:A15 dated 31.3.2005 is quashed and set aside. In the 3 normal circumstances, the court ought to have been given opportunity to the respondents to proceed with the matter in accordance with law after furnishing the tentative reasons to the delinquent. However, since the petitioner has retired and the amount involved is Rs.5160/- only, the proceedings are directed to be closed in the interest of justice. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. March 29,2010(R)