IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P. (T) No. 57 of 2010. Decided on: 6th July, 2011. _____________________________________________________ Dhani Ram. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner vide memorandum dated 18th May, 2002 (Annexure A- 4). The Assistant Engineer, Kunihar was appointed as Inquiry Officer vide office order dated 26.04.2002. He submitted the report to the disciplinary authority on 19.05.2003. Thereafter, the Executive Engineer, Arki issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner alongwith copy of the reply on 14.07.2003. He was permitted 15 days’ time to file reply. He filed a detailed reply to the show-cause notice dated 14.07.2003 vide Annexure A-9 on 29.07.2003. The disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of dismissal upon the petitioner vide office order dated 12.12.2003 (Annexure A-10). A bare perusal of order dated 12.12.2003 makes it abundantly clear that neither the same is self contained nor detailed. It is settled law by now that the order 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No. - 2 - passed by the disciplinary authority must be self contained, detailed and reasoned. Moreover, once the petitioner has been permitted to make a representation to the show-cause notice dated 14.07.2003 and he has made a representation to the same on 29.07.2003, the averments contained in the same were required to be taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority. In the instant case, the disciplinary authority has only made an observation that the representation has been considered carefully. It will not meet the requirement of law. The purpose of enabling an employee to make a representation against the proposed action, is to explain the circumstances against him and to prove the innocence. Since the order dated 12.12.2003 is neither detailed nor self contained, the same is liable to be struck down. 2. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-10, dated 12.12.2003 is quashed and set aside. It shall be open to the respondents to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. However, while dealing with the case of the petitioner again, it will be taken into consideration that since he belongs to a lowest strata of the society, his case is required to be dealt with sympathetically. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge July 06, 2011. (bhupender) - 3 - - 4 - `