IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.:2503/2008 Decided on: 16.3.2009 Lachhi Ram. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1.No For the petitioner : Ms. Ranjana Parmar., Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. A.G. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral) The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on the basis of Annexure A-4. The Inquiry Officer was appointed. He submitted the inquiry report. The operative portion of the inquiry report dated 25.8.1992 reads thus: “As per witnesses produced from the prosecution side, witnesses produced from the defence side, from the perusal of the documents, the enquiries made on the different dates and on the different places and written statements made by the Presenting Officer and Advisor, it is clear that cutting in Roll Nos. in Science Paper-A of 9th Class has been made but it is not proved from the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 prosecution side that who did the cuttings. So I arrived at this conclusion that whatever allegation made is fully proved and for that Shri T.R. Sharma, Headmaster, Shri Kundi Ram Sharma, TGT, Shri Man Chand Chauhan may be found guilty.” The Disciplinary Authority on the basis of the inquiry report imposed penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect vide order Annexure A-10. The petitioner approached the learned Tribunal by way of OA No.325/1994 for the redressal of his grievance. The learned Tribunal directed the original application to be treated as a representation and to be decided by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Education). He decided the same on 2.12.1994. It is evident from the concluding portion of the inquiry report that it was not proved by the prosecution who was/were responsible for the cuttings/tempering in the roll Nos. 29 and 24 in the subject of paper Science (A) of Class-IX. In the absence of a specific finding who was responsible for cuttings, the charges could not be held to be proved against the petitioner and similarly situate persons. However, despite this finding, the Inquiry Officer came to a wrong conclusion that the allegations stood proved against the petitioner. On the basis of this inquiry report, the penalty, as discussed hereinabove, was imposed upon the petitioner. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Education), Government of Himachal Pradesh on 2.12.1994 while rejecting the representation of the petitioner had though observed that the Inquiry Officer has failed to prove or identify the guilty who was/were responsible for the cuttings/tempering, came to a conclusion that it was highly unbecoming on the part of a responsible teacher being a member of the Promotion Committee and he could not escape from his moral responsibility. 3 In this case the disciplinary proceedings have been initiated to ascertain who was responsible for cuttings/tempering in roll Nos. 29 and 24. There was no conclusive finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer on the subject. The Inquiry Officer has committed serious illegality as despite recording a finding that it could not be ascertained who was responsible for the cuttings in Roll Nos. 29 and 24 in the subject of paper Science (A) of Class-IX came to a conclusion that the charges stood proved against the petitioner. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Education), Government of Himachal Pradesh had erred in law despite noticing that the responsibility has not been fixed by the Inquiry Officer by observing that it was the moral responsibility of the petitioner to ensure that there was no cutting in roll Nos. 29 and 24. Once the disciplinary proceedings had been initiated, the charges were required to be proved against the petitioner in accordance with law. It was not open to the Commissioner- cum-Secretary (Education) to reject the representation of the petitioner by observing that the act of the petitioner was unbecoming of a teacher and he was morally responsible without the charges levelled being proved against the petitioner in accordance with law. Accordingly, it is held that in the absence of conclusive finding who was responsible for the cuttings in the roll Nos. 29 and 24, the penalty could not be imposed upon the petitioner by the disciplinary authority. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Education), Government of Himachal Pradesh also erred by ignoring this important aspect while rejecting the representation made by the petitioner. Consequently, the petition is allowed. Annexures A-10 and A-14 dated 2.12.1994 are quashed and set aside. 16.3.2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*