IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No.6155 of 2008. Judgment reserved on:14.12.2010. Date of Decision: 7.1.2011. Mohinder Paul Grover …Petitioner. Versus. State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No For the Petitioner(s): Mr.Dilip Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Mr.Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl.A.G. for Respondents No.1&2. Deepak Gupta, J. 1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed that the order Annexures P-13 and P-15 be quashed and set- aside and the petitioner be reinstated into service. 2. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner was working as Junior Assistant in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla. He was promoted as Senior Assistant on 1st May, 1998. On 28th September, 1998 the petitioner was charge-sheeted by the Disciplinary Authority and the charges against him were: (1) that on his promotion as Senior Assistant, the petitioner had been appointed as Training Assistant in the Planning and 2 Development Branch vide order dated 2.5.1998 but did not comply with the same till 17.9.1998; (2) that the petitioner had willfully absented himself from duty from 9.7.1998 to 11.9.1998; (3) that the petitioner did not hand over the cash book and relevant accounts relating to the District Red Cross Society and therefore failed to maintain integrity and absolute devotion to duty; and (4) that the petitioner despite directions of the Deputy Commissioner-cum- Chairman of the District Red Cross Society had failed to handover the accounts of the Society to the P.A. to the D.C. Branch. 3. The petitioner was admittedly proceeded against ex-parte in the inquiry proceedings and thereafter ex-parte inquiry was concluded against the petitioner and finally penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed upon him. 4. The main grievance of the petitioner is that he was wrongly proceeded against ex-parte. The petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit and along with the supplementary affidavit has placed certain material on record which he has obtained under the Right to Information Act. Relying upon this information which has now been placed on record, which is basically the copy of the log book, the petitioner contends that the 3 Inquiry Officer was busy throughout the day in going to the Secretariat, to Shalaghat, to Kasumpti Chowk etc. with the Chief Minister and therefore the Inquiry Officer could not have been present at 11.05 a.m., 231 p.m. and 4.30 p.m. when the case was called. Basically it is urged that the order sheet has been fabricated at a later stage. 5. On 27th January, 1999, the case against the petitioner was allegedly called firstly at 11.05 a.m. when the petitioner was not present and the file was ordered to be taken up at 2.30 p.m. At 2.30 p.m. the petitioner against was not present and the case was ordered to be called at 4.30 p.m. According to the petitioner, he was present throughout the day and had in fact filed an application in the office of the Deputy Commissioner with copy to the Inquiry Officer for permission to engage a Defence Assistant of his choice on the same date itself. There is material on record to show that on 27th January, 1999, the date when the petitioner was proceeded against ex-parte, he filed an application praying that he may be permitted to engage a Defence Assistant in the office of the Deputy Commissioner with a copy to the Inquiry Officer. On 27.1.1999 itself, the concerned official in the office of the Inquiry Officer made a note that the petitioner 4 Sh.Mohinder Paul Grover had presented this application to him. The official told him that he ( M.P. Grover), should personally present this application to the Addl. District Magistrate who was conducting the inquiry against Sh.Grover but the petitioner left this application on the table and stated that he would come back after some time. There is however no reference to this letter in the order of the Inquiry Officer dated 27th January, 1999. 6. The record of the Deputy Commissioner was also perused. It is apparent that the application filed by the petitioner was put up to the Deputy Commissioner on 27th January, 1999 itself. Firstly, a note was put up by the Dealing Hand to the Superintendent (Admn.), to the effect that there are no special circumstances which may warrant allowing the charged official to engage a legal practitioner. Thereafter, the matter was put up before the Assistant Commissioner to the D.C. who approved the noting. Then the matter was discussed with the Disciplinary authority i.e. the Deputy Commissioner who directed that the Inquiry Officer should put up the PUC on the inquiry file. Thereafter, the matter was discussed with the Inquiry Officer who approved a note on 27.1.1999 itself that since the Officer who was sought to 5 be appointed as Defence Assistant is an Advocate, the request cannot be entertained. It was clearly mentioned that the delinquent official seems to be deliberately causing delay in the inquiry. This note has been signed by the Inquiry Officer on 27th January, 1999 itself and thereafter on the file of the Deputy commissioner itself there is a noting that Sh.Mohinder Paul Grover be informed of this fact and on the file of the Deputy Commissioner there is a copy of letter addressed to Sh.Mohinder Paul Grover informing him that his request for appointment of Defence Assistant has not been accepted. 7. According to the respondents the letter dated 1st February, 1999 was sent to the petitioner by post at his last known address but the letter could not be delivered because the petitioner was not found at his address and thereafter the petitioner sent communication dated 7th April, 1999 that he had not received any information and then the letter was again sent to him by registered speed post. 8. The petitioner, admittedly, had notice of the date fixed i.e. 27.1.1999. His explanation that he was present throughout the day and no orders were passed on that 6 date does not appear to the correct. Orders have been passed not only on the file of the Inquiry Officer but also on the file of the disciplinary authority i.e. the Deputy Commissioner on the same date and in the file of the Deputy Commissioner also signatures of the Inquiry Officer are there. All official acts are presumed to be done honestly and it cannot be believed that all the employees in the office of the Inquiry Officer conspired against the petitioner. 9. It would be pertinent to mention that the note of the Dealing hand, Superintendent (Admn.), AC to DC, the D.C., and the Inquiry Officer i.e. ADM(P), are all dated 27.1.1999 itself. Thereafter, the application was rejected. Therefore, the version of the petitioner that Sh.Katwal was not present in his office throughout the day does not appear to be correct and the version appearing in the note that the petitioner just threw the application on his table and went away and never returned appears to be correct. In such a situation the Inquiry Officer had no other option but to proceed ex-parte against the petitioner. 10. On going through the record I find that on various instances when notices were given to the petitioner at the address available with the employer the same came back 7 with the reports that the house was locked. I have seen the original Despatch register and find that copy of the letter of the Deputy Commissioner rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for appointment of defence assistant was sent to him by a registered post on 1.2.1999. 11. Thus, there is material on record to show that the petitioner was apprised of the order dated 27.1.1999. The petitioner has given no explanation as to what he did from 27.1.1999 till 7.4.1999. The petitioner was an employee of the office of the Deputy Commissioner and it would not have been difficult for him to have found out what happened on 27.1.1999. The case of the petitioner that the letter rejecting his request was issued on 17.4.1999 and was antedated 1.2.1999 is totally false since both in the files of the Inquiry Officer and in the office of the Deputy Commissioner I find that the file was dealt with on 27.1.1999 and orders passed and the same was sent at the address of the petitioner by registered post on 1.2.1999. The second letter was only dispatched after the application dated 7.4.1999 was filed by the petitioner. It is more than obvious that the petitioner was trying to delay the proceedings and was not appearing before the Inquiry Officer and therefore he 8 himself has landed in this position where he has been proceeded against ex-parte and the matter decided in his absence. He cannot now be heard to argue that he should not have been proceeded against ex-parte. 12. As far as the merits are concerned, I after going through the record find that the charges against the petitioner stand proved on the basis of the material on record. 13. For the reasons stated here-in-above, I find no merit in the petition which is dismissed. No order as to costs. January 7, 2011 ( Deepak Gupta ) PV Judge.