IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.:2407/2008 Decided on:16.4.2009 Amrik Singh. …Petitioner. Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. No. For the petitioner : Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate vice Mr. Virender Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, J. The petitioner was charge-sheeted under rule 16 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. He filed reply to the same on 15.9.1994. The gist of the reply is that he was robed when he was travelling in a bus bearing No. DLIP-2924. He raised hue and cry. He tried to lodge an FIR immediately, however, the same was not lodged by the Police on the ground that the incident has not taken place in its jurisdiction. However, the FIR was registered on 8.8.1994 though the incident is dated 4.8.1994. He reached Shimla and reported the matter to the Regional Manager, Himachal Road Transport 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 Corporation. He was called upon to deposit a sum of Rs. 12,452/- on 21.9.1994. The Manager (Technical) issued office order dated 24.12.1994 after taking into consideration the reply filed by the petitioner. He imposed penalty of recovery of Rs. 12,452/- to be paid in 15 monthly installments of Rs. 800/- each and the 16th installment of Rs. 452/- on account of loss caused to the corporation. Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate has strenuously argued that the petitioner has not been heard before the issuance of office order dated 24.12.1994. He has also contended that the petitioner had lodged the FIR on 8.8.1994 and the penalty could not be imposed without waiting for the outcome of the FIR registered by his client. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate has supported the issuance of office order dated 24.12.1994. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. The petitioner was sanctioned temporary advance amounting to Rs. 20,000/-. He was deployed to collect spare parts from Delhi. He purchased spare parts amounting to Rs. 5,178/- and an amount of Rs. 2,370/- was paid against G.R. No. 261819 to M/s Amritsar Transport Company. He spent a sum of Rs. 7578/- from the sanctioned amount of Rs. 20,000/-. He did not count for the remaining amount. His version as per the reply filed was that while he was returning from Jhandewala, New Delhi after purchasing the spare parts, 7 to 8 persons boarded the bus and robed him of Rs. 12,600/-. He raised hue and cry but nobody came to his rescue. He tried to lodge an FIR at Police Station, Paharganj, however, the same was not registered and ultimately, it was registered on 8.8.1994. The version put forth by the petitioner the manner in which he was robed of the money is unbelievable. According to him, he was 3 chased by some unknown persons and they boarded the bus in which he was travelling. It is a cock-and-bull story invented by the petitioner. Assuming hypothetically that this incident has taken place in that eventuality, he was required to inform the authorities immediately. He lodged the FIR on 8.8.1994. He has stated in his reply that he had kept the money in the internal pocket of his pants. It was not possible for anyone to take this money from the internal pocket of his pants. His version that he tried to deposit the money with the Cashier at Delhi cannot be accepted. There was no occasion for the Cashier to refuse to receive the amount if it was being validly deposited. He had been given sufficient opportunity before imposing penalty vide order dated 24.12.1994. The version put forth by him has rightly not been believed by the competent authority. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. 16.4.2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*