IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P. (T) No. 8048 of 2008. Decided on 25.02.2011. __________________________________________________ Vinod Kumar Chaudhary. …Petitioner. -Versus- The State of H.P. and Others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the respondent. : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Additional Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated 13th October, 1992 by the disciplinary authority to the following effect: “a) Payment of advance to Capital Brick Traders, Manpura. b) Non-recovery of advance paid to Capital Brick Trader, Manpura to the tune of Rs. 21,414,67/- and Rs. 550.20. c) Less receipt of Bricks to the tune of Rs.14,500 bricks, valued at Rs. 3532.42 @ 243.62 per thousand.” 2. The Commissioner, Departmental Enquires was appointed as Inquiry Officer. He submitted the report dated 30th July, 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No. - 2 - 1994. Petitioner was exonerated by the Inquiry Officer. However, in the meantime, the Additional Director-Cum-Joint Secretary, RDD & Panchayati Raj constituted an another Departmental Promotion Committee on 13th October, 1993, comprising of one Senior Junior Engineer, Development Block, Nalagarh, Social Education and Block Development Officer, Development Block, Nalagarh, Panchayat Inspector, Development Block, Nalagarh and one person to be nominated by the B.D.O. to work out the exact consumption of brick tiles. This committee has submitted the report to the disciplinary authority on 03.12.1993. The petitioner has also made a representation against the constitution of the Departmental Promotion Committee on 9th December, 1991. It appears from the record that the petitioner thereafter made a representation to His Excellency, the Governor of Himachal Pradesh on 08.01.2001. In sequel thereto, the petitioner was supplied the copy of the enquiry report dated 30th July, 1994 submitted by the Commissioner, Departmental Inquiries, copy of the departmental letter, dated 13.10.1993 and copy of the report submitted by the Departmental Committee. 3. Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the petitioner had already been exonerated by the Commissioner, Departmental Inquiries and the second departmental committee could not be constituted on 13.10.1993. He further argued that the petitioner has not been associated by the Departmental Committee in the proceedings and has given the report against the petitioner on 03.12.1993 4. Mr. A.K. Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General has supported the issuance of Annexure P-3, dated 03.12.1993. - 3 - 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had already been exonerated by the Commissioner, Departmental Enquiries, Himachal Pradesh on 30th July, 1994. The disciplinary authority has instituted another departmental committee on 13.10.1993 to look into the consumption of brick tiles. The committee has opined vide report dated 03.12.1993 that a sum of Rs. 22621.19/- was to be recovered from the petitioner. The exercise undertaken by the disciplinary authority to constitute the Departmental Promotion Committee was not in accordance with law. In case there was any shortage in the consumption of brick tiles, the petitioner was required to be served with a show-cause notice and thereafter regular departmental inquiry was required to be instituted as per the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Petitioner has not been associated by the Departmental Promotion Committee during the course of its deliberations. He has suffered civil and evil consequences, since the Departmental and Promotion Committee has ordered the recovery of a sum of Rs. 22621.19/- as per Annexure P-3, dated 03.12.1993. The whole exercise undertaken by the disciplinary authority is arbitrary and unreasonable. There is violation of the principles of natural justice. 7. Accordingly, in view of the observations/discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexure P-3, dated 03.12.1993 is quashed and set aside. In normal circumstances, the respondents ought to have been given an opportunity to proceed with the matter in accordance with law, however, since in the instant case the petitioner has retired from service in the - 4 - month of December, 1993 and as of today he has attained the age of 75 years, the proceedings are directed to be dropped to avoid immense hardship to the petitioner. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge February 25, 2011. (bhupender) - 5 - `