IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA C.W.P. No. 4980 of 2011 Date of decision: July 29, 2011 Het Ram Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge For the Petitioner : Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate For the State: Mr. Ankush Sood, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. J.K.Verma, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is filed with the following prayers:- “(i) That the impugned order dated 20.6.2011, Annexure P-10 may be quashed and set aside, with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary if during the pendency of writ petition the petitioner is kept out of job on account of impugned order. (ii) That the respondent No. 3 may be directed to proceed further in the matter from the stage of consideration of representation of the petitioner against inquiry report and pass appropriate order in the light of material on record.” 2. It is stated in Annexure P-10 that the petitioner had not submitted any representation despite an opportunity given to him. According to the petitioner, he had submitted the 2 representation and the same was available on the files. In view of the above submission, this Court, on 7th July, 2011, passed the following order:- “The petitioner submits that he had submitted his representation and the same is available on the files. But on account of an inadvertent mistake, it appears that the same has not been considered. Short reply on this particular aspect shall be filed within two weeks.” 3. In reply, filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3, it is stated, at paragraph 25, as follows:- “That the contents of para No. 25 of the writ petition are wrong and denied. It is submitted that the petitioner submitted his representation dated 15.6.2011 by hand in the receipt on dated 17.6.2011 which fact has come to the knowledge of replying respondent No. 3 at the time of preparing this reply, on inquiry from the receipt clerk as the same was brought in the knowledge on 20.6.2011 after passing the order of dismissal against the petitioner.” 4. Admittedly, the representation was on the files of the respondents. If somebody had not brought it to the notice of the 3rd respondent, it is for the 3rd respondent to take appropriate action against the erring officer(s). 5. In the above circumstances, Annexure P-10 is set aside. There will be a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider the matter afresh, taking note of the representation furnished by 3 the petitioner and after affording an opportunity for hearing to the petitioner. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible at any rate within three months from today. 6. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. Copy dasti. ( Justice Kurian Joseph ), Chief Justice July 29, 2011 (K) ( Justice V.K. Sharma ), Judge