IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. LPA No.177/2009 Decided on:7.12.2009 ________________________________________________ Shishi Ram. …Appellant. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Acting Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Appellant : Mr. Jeevesh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General with Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General for the respondents. ________________________________________________________ This Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 7.10.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP (T) No. 8678/2008. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this Letters Patent Appeal are that the departmental proceedings were initiated against the appellant-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 petitioner’ for convenience sake) on 1.12.2000. The Disciplinary Authority imposed penalty upon the petitioner on 15.5.2001. The Appellate Authority had modified the order on 1.10.2001. The petitioner approached this Court for quashing the penalty imposed upon him by way of CWP (T) No. 8678/2008. Learned Single Judge dismissed the petition on 7.10.2009. Mr. Jeevesh Sharma has vehemently argued that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is not sustainable. He then contended that the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority was beyond the scope of charge-sheet. He also contended that the Inquiry Officer has violated rules 14 (11), 14 (14) and 14 (18) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. He further contended that the instructions dated 3.2.2000 were not brought to the notice of his client nor the same have been proved in accordance with law. He lastly contended that the Inquiry Officer cross-examined the Presenting Officer and directed him to file rejoinder to the written brief filed on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has supported the judgment dated 7.10.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone the pleadings carefully. The petitioner was charge-sheeted on 1.12.2000. He filed reply to the charge-sheet. The Inquiry Officer was appointed. He submitted the report to the Disciplinary Authority on 4.4.2001. The Disciplinary Authority on 15.5.2001 imposed penalty of recovery of Rs. 3,54,436/- 3 upon the petitioner. He preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority on 1.10.2001 modified the punishment with the observation that the recovery was to be effected from the salary of the petitioner in view of rule 11 (23) (c) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. He ordered that the recovery of Rs. 67,680/- be effected from the petitioner’s salary. There is no merit in the contention of Mr. Jeevesh Sharma that the penalty imposed upon the petitioner was beyond the scope of charge-sheet. The petitioner was working as a Driver. He took the vehicle of the Department to his residence at Tutu. The vehicle was stolen. He had parked the vehicle contrary to the instructions dated 3.2.2000. The precise charge against the petitioner was of gross negligence in discharge of his duties and disobedience of the orders of his superiors. This was proved in the disciplinary proceedings on the basis of the inquiry conducted by the Inquiry Officer. The recovery has been ordered by way of punishment. It was not at all necessary, as rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, to mention the amount in the charge-sheet. The value of the jeep, which was stolen on 24.7.2000 was Rs. 3,54,436/-. This position was not disputed before the learned Single Judge. Mr. Jeevesh Sharma has further argued that the Inquiry Officer could not direct the Presenting Officer to file rejoinder to the written brief filed on behalf of the petitioner. There is no illegality in the order of the Inquiry Officer. Moreover, the petitioner has not shown how he was prejudiced by the order passed by the Inquiry Officer asking the 4 Presenting Officer to file rejoinder to the written brief filed on behalf of the petitioner. There is also no merit in the contention of Mr. Sharma that the petitioner was not aware of the instructions dated 3.2.2000. Specific instructions have been issued to all the drivers to properly lock the vehicle and in case of theft the driver was to be held responsible for the consequences. The vehicle was parked by the petitioner at the road side in violation of the instructions dated 3.2.2000. The copy of the instructions dated 3.2.2000 has been mentioned specifically in Annexure-III annexed with the documents alongwith the charge-sheet. The petitioner has not taken this ground in the reply filed to the charge-sheet that the instructions dated 3.2.2000 were not served upon him. The Inquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority have rightly taken the cognizance of orders/instructions dated 3.2.2000. The petitioner has been afforded reasonable opportunity to defend himself during the disciplinary proceedings. Accordingly, we are in respectful agreement with the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge. Consequently, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in the present Letters Patent Appeal and the same is dismissed. No costs. (R.B. Misra), Acting Chief Justice (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 7.12.2009. *awasthi*