IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 5198/2008 (OA 1314/98) Date of Decision : April 29, 2010 Sh. S. K. Gupta Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Ms. Pratima Malhotra, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the respondent : Mr. P. M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No. 1 and 2. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The petitioner has prayed for the following relief: “(1) That the charge sheet Annexure A-1 may kindly be quashed and set aside being illegal, void ab initio since it does not survive being the applicant having been retired in 1995 and the incident pertaining to some six years old whereas no action can be initiated after four years under the rules. (2) The records of the case may be summoned. (3) The cost of the petition be awarded. (4) Any other relief to which the applicant is deemed to be entitled to may kindly be allowed.” Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Annexure A-1 is the memorandum dated 6.7.1998 containing the article of charges with respect to the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the State against the petitioner. 3. Undisputed facts are that petitioner Sh. S. K. Gupta (H.A.S.) was posted as Land Acquisition Officer at Solan between 29.9.1992 upto 30.6.1995. Thereafter he superannuated. An F.I.R. No. 2 of 1995 dated 20.5.1995 was registered with the Police Station, Nahan. Investigation revealed that while officiating on the said post petitioner had embezzled an amount of Rs. 13,01,609/-. Consequently Government took a decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him. Thus the memorandum in question was issued to him. 4. Petitioner filed O.A. No. 1314 of 1998 before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, at Shimla which now stands transferred to this Court and renumbered. On 31.7.1998 the Tribunal had directed that no action shall be taken on the basis of the impugned memorandum. The stay is continuing to be in operation till date. 5. The first challenge is on the ground that action has been initiated without any prior sanction of the Governor. The argument needs to be rejected for the reason that the memorandum itself states that the action has been initiated by order and in the name of the Governor. 6. It is further urged that not only the charges are vague but are with respect to an event which took place more than four years prior 3 to the institution of the proceedings. Perusal of the memorandum and the articles of charge however reflect a different position. The charge is clear and specific. It contains necessary and specific allegations of misconduct. The cash book was not maintained properly; the receipts of the payments disbursed were not on record; there was misappropriation of funds; there was disobedience of the orders of the superior authorities. The charges are clear, specific and serious and they pertain to the events which took place within four years prior to the date of the initiation of the inquiry. It is within the prescribed period under Rule 9(2)(b) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. Reference to the period of posting of an employee cannot be read to mean that the event pertains to a period beyond the period prescribed under the Rules. 7. It is further urged that the action has been initiated on the asking of respondent No. 3, against whom petitioner had initiated disciplinary action by issuing warnings. Respondent No. 3 has not filed any affidavit in response. Be that as it may be, it would not be correct to contend that the action was initiated on the asking of respondent No. 3. In fact, F.I.R. had been registered by the police and it was during the course of investigation, as is so stated by the State in its reply, the alleged misappropriation of the funds by the petitioner were discovered. That apart, action to initiate disciplinary proceedings was taken at the highest level in the Government. Hence respondent No. 3, who is just a Superintendent, cannot be said to be instrumental in the initiation of the disciplinary 4 proceedings in question. The allegations qua mala fide are absolutely vague, unspecific and unsubstantiated. 8. In any event it is always open for the petitioner to take up all these issues in his defence in the proceedings in question. 9. For the aforesaid reasons I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Interim order stands vacated. 10. Considering the long time gap, respondent is directed to take the disciplinary proceedings to its logical end as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of twelve months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. April 29, 2010 (PK)