IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 12182 of 2008. Decided on: June 29, 2010. Ramesh Kaundal. ….. Petitioner. Versus H.P.P.S.C & anr. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. For the petitioner (s) Mr. Dalip Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents M/S. D.K.Khanna & Ranjana Parmar, Advocates for respondent No.1. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, ASGI, for respondent No.2. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The challenge is against the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, as per Annexure P-5. The following are the Articles of Charge: “ ARTICLE I That the said Shri Ramesh Kaundal, while functioning as Superintendent (Ex-cadre) in the office of H.P. Public service Commission had represented to the Member-I, H.P. Public Service Commission under Rule 23 (iv)(b) of CCS(CCA) Rules read with Regulation-11 of Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (Staff) Regulations, 1971, alleging interpretation of various provisions of service Rules to his disadvantage with deliberate, mala fide, vindictive biased and discriminatory attitude. After having gone through the each paras of his representation, it is found that the said Shri Ramesh Kaundal, Superintendent (Ex-cadre) misinterpreting the Rules and Regulations guided the Member-I, H.P. Public Service Commission and the office in wrong directions with ulterior motive. In addition, the said Shri Ramesh Kaundal, Superintendent (Ex-cadre), H.P. Public Service Commission wrongly represented that the recovery of interest on HBA differential amount and House Repair 2 Loan is being affected from his salary at higher rate whereas no excess interest on above loans has been recovered from him. Such behavior on the part of Shri Ramesh Kaundal, Superintendent (Ex-cadre) is unbecoming of Government servant and lacking in devotion to duty and maintenance of absolute integrity. In doing so, Shri Ramesh Kaundal, Superintendent (Ex-cadre) has failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as laid down in Rule 3(1)(i) and (ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. ARTICLE –II That the said Shri Ramesh Kaundal, while functioning as Superintendent (Ex-cadre) in the office of H.P. Public Service Commission had represented to the Member-I, H.P. Public Service Commission under Rule 23(iv)(b) of CCS(CCA) Rules read with Regulation-11 of Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (Staff) Regulations, 1971, alleging interpretation of various provisions of service Rules to his disadvantage with deliberate, mala fide, vindictive biased and discriminatory attitude. After having gone through the each paras of his representation, it is found that the contents of Paras (viii) and (ix) of his representation relate to the decisions of the Chairman, H.P. Public Service Commission and no representation lie against any order passed by the Chairman, H.P. Public Service Commission before the Senior-most Member of the Commission. The representation to the authorities who are not directly concerned with the consideration thereof is a most objectionable practice, contrary to official propriety and subversive of good discipline and all Government servants are expected scrupulously to eschew it. Also, the assignment of duties is prerogative of the authorities and no officers/officials can arrogate him as an authority to dictate about his posting on specific post. In doing so, Shri Ramesh Kaundal, Superintendent (Ex-cadre) has failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as laid down in Rule 3(1) (i) and (ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the Commission vehemently contended that the petitioner could have represented only before the Chairman and instead he had represented his grievances with allegations against the subordinates before the senior most Member and in doing so, he has violated the Conduct Rules. It is also submitted that since the petitioner has already been served with the memo of charges, it 3 is only appropriate that the writ-petitioner participates in the inquiry and the inquiry should reach its logical conclusion. 3. We are afraid, the contentions cannot be appreciated. At the outset, it has to be noted that the writ petitioner has now retired from service. That apart, under the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (Staff) Regulations, 1971, the senior most Member of the Commission also is an authority in respect of the discipline-punishment and appeal and as far as the writ petitioner, who at the relevant time, belonged to Class-III, it is the senior most Member who is the appellate authority. True, as contended by the learned counsel for the Commission, the appointing authority and the disciplinary authority is the Secretary. But, being an authority in-charge, also of the discipline, the writ petitioner bonafide thought of bringing his grievances to the notice of the said authority. It is also seen that the senior most Member had called for remarks on the representation. All that apart, in case, the senior most Member was not the authority before whom the grievances could have been represented, it was always open to that Member either to reject it on that ground or forward it to the authority concerned. For the only reason that he had made representation and that too, intra- forum, it cannot be held that the petitioner has violated the Conduct Rules on the only ground of representing the grievances before an authority in the Commission, itself. 4. Therefore, it is not a fit case where the petitioner should have been proceeded against on the above charges. At any rate, there is no point in proceeding against the petitioner, at this stage, since he has retired from service on 31.7.2009. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is 4 allowed by setting aside the disciplinary proceedings initiated as per Annexure P-5. Copy Dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. June 29, 2010. ( Justice Kuldip Singh ), (karan) Judge.