1.1.2009 Present: Mr. B. N. Mehta, Advocate, for the applicant-petitioner. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents. CWP(T) No.3027/2008 (OA No.333/1996) The applicant filed Original Application No.333/1996 before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Shimla. The same has now been transferred and listed before this Court. The applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(a) Entire record pertaining to the case may kindly be summoned and perused. (b) Direction my kindly be issued to the respondents to decide the representations made by the applicant and also grant him pensionary benefits in view of the fact that the applicant has completed ten years qualifying service in the department. He may also be held entitled to the gratuity for the entire service rendered by him with intermittent breaks, which were totally illegal and arbitrary, besides being against law. (c) Direction my also be issued to the pensionary benefits along with interest accrued thereon, as may be deemed proper. (d) Any other relief for which the applicant is entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case.” On the reply filed by the State, it is evident that the applicant was removed from service as he was found to have consumed liquor while on duty. Due to his conduct accident took place causing financial loss to the Corporation. He was charge-sheeted, an inquiry was conducted in accordance with Law and he was removed from service. This fact is not disputed nor was the disciplinary proceedings and the action taken by the authority challenged by the applicant. It has attained finality. The applicant was charged for an offence under Sections 279 & 337 IPC, but was, however, acquitted in the said proceedings. Be that as it may be, the initiation of disciplinary action against the delinquent officer is totally independent to the findings of the Court in criminal proceedings. The Corporation has further elaborated that at the relevant time there was no pension scheme in existence to the employees of the Corporation. In this view of the matter, the prayers of the applicant cannot be allowed. Hence, the petition is dismissed. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. January 1, 2009 (rana)