IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWPT No.10037 of 2008 Date of Decision: September 28, 2011 Laxman Singh ..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes. For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. __________________________________________ Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Feeling aggrieved by the order of his premature retirement, passed in the year 1985, vide Annexure A-4 and order dated 20.6.2007, copy Annexure A-7, visiting him with the penalty of recovery of a sum of `5086.10, petitioner filed an Original Application before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, seeking quashing of both the orders. On the abolition of the Tribunal in the year 2008, matter came to this Court and was registered as the present writ petition. 2. Case of the petitioner may be noticed. Petitioner had been serving as Block Development Officer in the year 1985, when order, copy Annexure A-4, retiring him prematurely, on review of his service record, on attaining Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? É2É the age of 50 years, was passed. He filed a writ petition in this Court, challenging that order. During the pendency of that writ petition, H.P. State Administrative Tribunal was set up and the aforesaid writ petition was transferred to the Tribunal, where it was registered as Transfer Application. It was disposed of by the Tribunal, vide order dated 11.9.1992, with a direction to the respondents to decide the departmental appeal, filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order of premature retirement, copy Annexure A-4, within six months, by a speaking order, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. By the same order, another direction was given to the respondents to take final decision, in respect of the departmental proceedings, which had been initiated against the petitioner for certain acts of misconduct before the passing of order of pre-mature retirement. 3. Petitioner’s case is that respondents decided his appeal and completed the departmental proceedings in the year 2003, vie order dated 20.6.2003, copy Annexure A-7. According to him, the decision having been taken after the expiry of six months time fixed by the Tribunal in its order, is of no consequence and is, in fact, nonest and, therefore, the orders of premature retirement as also of penalty of recovery of a sum of `5086.10 are not binding upon him. Prayer has been made for quashing both the orders, i.e. É3É Annexure A-1, regarding premature retirement and Annexure A-7, regarding imposition of penalty. 4. Respondents, in their reply, have stated that appeal of the petitioner against the order of premature retirement had been disposed of in the year 1993, vide order Annexure R-1, after the matter was considered by a fresh Review Committee, constituted in accordance with the order of the Tribunal. As regards the order, copy Annexure A-7, it is alleged that the said order was passed on the conclusion of the departmental proceedings. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Petitioner has not made any reference to the order, copy Annexure R-1, which is dated 17.5.1993, in his petition. It is only in the rejoinder that he has stated that the said order was passed, without affording any opportunity of being heard, to him. He does not say in the rejoinder that he was unaware of the passing of this order or that it had not been conveyed to him. His silence, qua this aspect of the matter, implies that the order had been passed to his knowledge and it had been served upon him. His conduct in not making any reference to this order, leave alone assailing, it in the Original Application, belies his averment in the rejoinder that the order was passed without hearing him, especially when the averments in the rejoinder are not supported by an affidavit. He has not assailed this É4É order in the present Original Application. The order was passed about 18 years back and now the prayer made in the form of submission by petitioner’s counsel, is, on the face of it, hit by delay and latches. 7. As regards the second order, i.e. copy Annexure A-7, it appears that it has been passed without application of mind. Charge sheet that was served upon the petitioner is available as Annexure A-1. As per this charge sheet, petitioner had allegedly withdrawn a sum of `1086.10, on account of arrears of efficiency bar, without there being any order of crossing efficiency bar in his favour. Punishing Authority, in its order, copy Annexure A-7, has written that the amount had been drawn on account of proficiency step- up. That was not the charge. Petitioner’s plea is that the aforesaid amount had been drawn by him, on account of proficiency step-up, after the approval of the Head of the Department had been received by him. 8. Another charge pertains to drawal of a sum of `4000/-, by way of advance of leave travel concession (LTC). Allegation, on which charge is based, was that though he had withdrawn a sum of `4000/-, he had never taken earned leave for availing LTC. Petitioner’s defence was that he had withdrawn the money for availment of LTC, by his family members and the aforesaid advance had been adjusted against the bill, submitted in respect of the availment of said LTC, by his family members. This plea has been taken by the petitioner in the present petition also and the É5É respondents, in the reply, do not deny the same. Therefore, there should be no reason to disbelieve the plea that the money was drawn as advance for availment of LTC by the family members of the petitioner and the said amount had been got adjusted against the bill, submitted in respect of the availment of said LTC, by his family members. 9. As a result of above discussion, petitioner’s plea for quashing the order of premature retirement, Annexure A-4, is rejected. However, his prayer for quashing the order of punishment, Annexure A-7, is allowed and the said order of punishment Annexure A-7 is quashed. Petition stands disposed of. September 28, 2011 (ss) (Surjit Singh), J.