IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.:2230/2008 Decided on: 18.3.2009 Sudershana Kumari and another. …Petitioner. Versus The Managing Director, Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation and another. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. No For the petitioners : Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate vice Mr. R.K. Gautam, Senior Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral) The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) was employed as a Driver with the respondent- corporation. He hit a cyclist, who succumbed to his injuries on 17.2.1982. He was convicted by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Una on 1.12.1993 and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months besides fine of Rs. 500/-. His appeal was dismissed. He was removed from service on 14.6.1986 under rule 19 (2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. He assailed 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 this order by way of OA No. 5 of 1988. The original application was decided on 29.4.1993. The operative portion of judgment dated 29.4.1993 reads thus: “In view of above we allow this application and quash order Annexure PA removing the applicant from service as also order Annexure PB dismissing his appeal. However, it will be open to the authorities concerned to proceed in the matter afresh in accordance with law and the observations made in this judgment. The disciplinary authority, in case it decides to proceed further in the matter, while allowing an opportunity of hearing to the applicant should also consider the question of modifying the penalty and award any one of the lesser penalties instead of awarding the draconian penalty of removal from service.” Thereafter the Divisional Manager i.e. respondent No.2 issued a memorandum to the petitioner on 14.6.1993. He filed a reply to the same on 23.6.1993. The Divisional Manager imposed a penalty of compulsory retirement with immediate effect on the petitioner vide order dated 3.7.1993. He assailed this decision before the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of CWP No. 2328/1993. The learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal directed the original application to be treated as representation to the Managing Director of the Corporation to be decided by him on merits. He was directed to decide the same within a period of four months. The Managing Director rejected the representation on 24.11.1993. Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate has strenuously argued that no inquiry was initiated against the petitioner before the imposition of penalty vide Annexure PF dated 3.7.1993. The submission of Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate is that the penalty was imposed after strictly complying with the provisions of rule 19 3 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. His precise contention is that once the petitioner had been convicted by the competent court of law, a notice was issued to him as directed by the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 5 of 1988 and thereafter he was dealt with under rule 19 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. What emerges from the facts enumerated hereinabove is that the petitioner was convicted by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Una on 1.12.1993. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. He lost in appeal. However, the disciplinary authority without hearing the petitioner under rule 19 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 imposed the penalty of removal from service on 21.9.1987. This order was set aside by the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal on 29.4.1993. Thereafter the disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice to the petitioner strictly in conformity with the provisions of rule 19 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 on the penalty proposed. He made a representation against the same vide Annexure PD. The disciplinary authority after taking into consideration the reply furnished by the petitioner imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner on 3.7.1993. The procedure adopted by the disciplinary authority was strictly in accordance with law. The Managing Director of the Corporation has also decided the representation on 24.11.1993 after taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case. He has also come to a conclusion 4 that the penalty of compulsory retirement was not disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. There is no merit in the submission of Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate that the inquiry was required to be initiated against the petitioner after his conviction by the criminal court before imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement. This submission is contrary to law. The corporation has strictly followed the provisions of rule 19 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 while imposing penalty of compulsory retirement on the petitioner. He was required to be heard by the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority has heard him and has passed a detailed/reasoned order. The appellate order is also speaking/reasoned one. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. 18.3.2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*