IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 5662 of 2008 Date of Decision: 12th May, 2010 Ajay Kumari Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol,J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R.M.Bisht, Dy. Advocate General. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(1) That the orders contained in Annexure A-4 and A-6 passed against the rules without application of mind may kindly be quashed and set aside. (2) The record of the case be summoned. (3) The cost of the application be awarded. (4) Any other relief to which the applicant is considered entitled to may be passed.” 2. In this petition, petitioner has assailed the order dated 6.8.1998 (Annexure A-6) and order dated 7.10.1998 (Annexure A-8). The petitioner was working as Senior Assistant (Accounts) in the office of Block Development Officer, Sangrah, w.e.f. 28.2.1996 to 22.11.1998. Serious complaints were Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment? 2 received against him and accordingly proceedings were initiated against him. In effect following four charges were levelled against him:- 1. Unauthorised absence from duty willfully. 2. Non compliance with the instructions of the Govt. regarding ensuring punctuality in attending office. 3. Overwriting in the attendance register without giving any explanation and coming late to the office. 4. Not performing her assigned duty with sincerity and dedication and habitual carelessness in discharge of duty. 3. The Enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty of charges No.2 and 3. The Disciplinary Authority was afforded opportunity of making representation with respect to proposed penalty. 4. In reply (Annexure A-5), petitioner almost admitted his guilt and assured not to repeat the same in future. By taking lenient view the disciplinary authority in terms of order (Annexure A-6) imposed minor penalty in the following terms:- “Now, therefore, taking into consideration the circumstances of the case and the gravity of the charges proved against the official, I impose minor penalty of stopping the two increments of said Smt. Ajay Kumari, Senior Assistant (Accounts) with the cumulative effect.” 5. Petitioner chose to exercise his statutory remedy by filing an appeal in which he simply took a defence of competence of the Director to institute disciplinary proceedings. The Appellate Authority in terms of order (Annexure A-8), by taking note of her defence dismissed the appeal, inter alia, by making the following observations:- 3 “Whereas, I have gone through the contents of the grounds of the appeal and have also gone through the relevant records. The Govt. had issued the Notification No.Per (AP- B)A(3) 1/96 dated 7.12.1996 vide which the Deputy Commissioner/ Head of office (Block Development Officer/ District Panchayat Officer) were notified as a disciplinary authority in respect of Class-III & IV employees. And whereas, Smt. Ajay Kumari, Sr. Assistant (Accounts) is a class-III employee, therefore, her plea that the Deputy Commissioner, Sirmour was not competent to initiate the proceeding against her carries no force in view of the above notification. And whereas, Smt. Ajay Kumari has not assailed the order appealed against on merits and the charges on which she has been penalized have been adequately proved against her. Now, therefore, I Rajwant Sandhu, Commissioner-cum- Secretary (RD), Government of Himachal Pradesh, reject the appeal of Smt. Ajay Kumari, Sr. Assistant (Accounts).” 6. Notification dated 7.12.1996 which is placed on record specifically empowers the authority in question to initiate the disciplinary proceedings. In the instant case, petitioner has been afforded due opportunity of hearing/ representation at all times. Principles of natural justice stand fully complied with. The scope of interference in writ jurisdiction is limited. Neither any perversity nor any illegality could be pointed out from the record. The petitioner has almost admitted his guilt and the authorities let him off by taking lenient view. No legally enforceable right of the petitioner stands violated. 7. In the circumstances, the present petition, without any merit, is dismissed. 13th May, 2010 (C) (Sanjay Karol) Judge.