IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition (T) No. 2940 of 2008 (OA(M) No. 108 of 1995). Date of decision: 28.8.2009. Gulab Singh …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. & ors. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. T.C.Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K.Sharma, Senior Addl. Advocate General, Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. R.P.Singh, Asstt. Advocate General, for the respondents. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). The OA (M) No. 108 of 1995 was filed in the H.P. Administrative Tribunal (for short, the Tribunal), which was abolished and the cases of the erstwhile Tribunal were transferred to this court and after transfer O.A. (M) No. 108 of 1995 has been registered as CWP(T) No. 2940 of 2008. 2. The facts of the case are that petitioner was charge- sheeted on 6.11.1989 under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The charge-sheet was served on five teachers including the petitioner separately for the same charge. The inquiry was conducted separately against each teacher, whereas the inquiry should have been ordered under Rule 18 for common proceedings, since more Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… than two teachers were charged on the basis of same allegations of misconduct. 3. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report in March 1993 and recorded the findings that charge has not been proved. The Inquiry Officer has recorded findings against T.R.Sharma, Headmaster, Kundi Ram Sharma TGT and Man Chand, Superintendent Examination. The petitioner was exonerated. 4. The Disciplinary Authority Director of Education without taking into consideration evidence on record illegally imposed penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect on all the teachers including the petitioner vide order 29.3.1994 Annexure A-1. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh in June 1994, who summarily rejected the appeal of the petitioner on 15.9.1994 vide Annexure A-5. The petitioner has thus assailed the punishment imposed on him. 5. The respondents have not filed any reply. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case of the petitioner is covered by the judgement dated 18.3.2009 passed in CWP(T) No. 3181 of 2008 titled Man Chand Chauhan vs. State of H.P. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, in that case also, Man Chand Chauhan was punished by the Disciplinary Authority. The learned single Judge has relied judgement dated 16.3.2009 passed in CWP(T) No. 2503 of 2008 titled Lachhi Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, in an identical case and set-aside the punishment order. The learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the facts in the present case are identical to the facts in Man …3… Chand Chauhan case. This has not been denied by the learned Senior Additional Advocate General. Therefore, in light of judgement dated 18.3.2009 passed in CWP(T) No. 3181 of 2008, the petition is allowed and order dated 29.3.1994 Annexure A-1 and letter dated 15.9.1994 Annexure A-5 are quashed with all consequential benefits. August 28, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.