IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No.14470 of 2008 (OA(D) No.270 of 2006) Date of decision: 23.6.2010 Bikram Singh ..Petitioner Vs State of H.P. and others .Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. For the Petitioner : Mr. Paras Doger, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) Petitioner has made the following prayers:- (i) “That the office order No.PWE-vig-1957/05- 589-94, dated 27.5.2006 ( Annexure A-1) issued by respondent No.2 and Memorandum of the charge sheet Bearing No.PWE-Vig-1957/05-1569 dated 9.1.2006 issued by Respondent No.2 Annexure A-3 may kindly be set aside and quashed and may kindly be declared illegal ultra vires, arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory, unconstitutional and unsustainable in the eye of law. (ii) That as the charge sheet issued vide office orders No.PWE-Vig-1957/05-809-II, dated 5- 8-2005 ( Annexure A-4) being contrary to record and the same being issued beyond powers issued by the respondent No.2 may kindly be quashed. 2 2. It is seen from Annexure A-4 dated 5.8.2005 that the department proposed to proceed against the petitioner only under Rule 16(1) of the CCS(CC& A) Rules 1965, whereas under the impugned order dated 27.5.2006, it is seen that the proposed proceedings are under sub rule (1-A) of Rule 16. The scope of proceedings under sub rule (1-A) are entirely different and that is why enquiry officer has been appointed. 3. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the Annexures P-1 to P-4, even the allegations raised in Annexure A-1 do not have any basis. Certainly the inquiry officer will look into this aspect before proceeding with the inquiry. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of, making it clear that before proceeding with the matter, the inquiry Officer shall look into the matter afresh in the light of Annexure P-1 to P-4. It is made clear that since the matter is of 2006 the Inquiry proceedings shall be completed within a period of three months from today. We, however, make it clear that in view of what is stated above, we are of the view that it is not a fit case where the petitioner should be put under suspension on this issue, during the enquiry in view of the afflux of time. Copy dasti (Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. June 23, 2010 (Kuldip Singh), (sks/grs) Judge. 3