IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P.(T) No. : 423 of 2008. Decided on: 09.03.2010. _________________________________________________________ O.P. Mukhija. …Petitioner. -Versus- Himachal Pradesh State Cooperative Milk Producers’ Federation, Totu, Shimla through its Managing Director and another. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, Advocate. None for the respondents. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge(Oral): Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was an employee of respondent- Federation. He retired as Plant Engineer. On 9.7.2002, 1122 liters of milk was curdled. One Shri S.C. Katoch was deputed to conduct a preliminary investigation in the matter and submit his report. He submitted the report, however, the same was not found satisfactory. One Shri Pradeep Sharma was entrusted with the job of conducting a preliminary inquiry in the matter afresh. Shri Pradeep Sharma was substituted by Shri D.S. Chauhan. The petitioner was called upon vide letter dated 21.8.2006 to explain his position. He filed his reply to the same on 5th September, 2006. He also brought to the notice of the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?Yes. Management that as per the service Rules, the proceedings could not be initiated against him after his retirement. He received a memorandum of 31.1.2007. He was directed to submit a representation within the time prescribed. He demanded the report of the fact finding inquiry on 9.2.2007. He also asked for the documents to defend himself. Petitioner was apprised that these documents could not be supplied and the same could be requisitioned during the course of inquiry. Petitioner thereafter made a detailed representation on 19.7.2007. However, the fact of the matter is that the Managing Director of the respondent-Federation on 12.10.2007 held petitioner liable for the loss resulted from the curdling of the milk and it was ordered that an amount of Rs.4558/- be recovered from the retrial dues of the petitioner in lump sum. Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the issuance of Annexure A-9 is contrary to law. He also contended that there is violation of the principles of natural justice. He lastly contended that once the charge sheet has been issued on 31st January, 2007, a regular inquiry ought to have been held by the respondent- Federation. I have heard Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the pleadings carefully. The incident is dated 09.07.2002. Petitioner superannuated on 31.05.2006. A preliminary inquiry was held, however, copy of the report was not furnished to the petitioner. The Management had decided to issue memorandum to the petitioner on 31st January, 2007. Petitioner has prayed for closing of the disciplinary proceedings and also prayed for supply of documents to defend himself. The Managing Director of the respondent-Federation has abruptly found the petitioner liable for the loss resulted from the curdling of the milk without holding any regular inquiry. The Court is of the considered view that once the disciplinary proceedings have been initiated, the same should have been taken to its logical end. Petitioner has not been supplied with the copy of the preliminary report. The action of the Management to drop the disciplinary proceedings abruptly and to hold the petitioner liable is actuated with legal malafides. Petitioner has retired and memorandum was issued to him after four years. The matter is required to be viewed from another angle. Petitioner has not been heard before the issuance of imposition of penalty vide order dated 12.10.2007. It is settled law that any order which has civil consequences, must be passed in conformity with the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-9, dated 12.10.2007 is quashed and set aside. In normal circumstances, the Court ought to have directed the Management to proceed with the matter in accordance with law, however, since the petitioner has retired, no useful purpose will be served by keeping the proceedings alive, therefore, the proceedings are directed to be closed against the petitioner. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge March 9, 2010. (bhupender)