IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 1660/2008 Decided on:31.8. 2009 ________________________________________________ Puran Bhagat. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. … Respondents. __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Acting Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. S.R. Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Mr. J.K. Verma and Mr. Anil Jaswal, Deputy Advocate Generals for the respondent. ________________________________________________________ The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner vide memorandum dated 22.8.2005. He filed reply to the same on 14.9.2005. The Inquiry Officer was appointed. He submitted the report to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority supplied the inquiry report to the petitioner vide memorandum dated 29.7.2008. He was permitted to file representation by 18.8.2002. He made the representation on 23.8.2008. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement with effect from 16.9.2008 vide order dated 1.9.2008. He was directed to hand over the charge vide office order dated 5.9.2008. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Mr. S.R. Chauhan, Advocate has argued that the petitioner has not been heard before the issuance of impugned order. He has projected as if it was a case of compulsory retirement under FR 56. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and have gone through the pleadings and documents annexed with the petition. In this case the penalty of compulsory retirement has been imposed upon the petitioner as envisaged under rule 11 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. He has been granted opportunity to defend himself at every level. He has been supplied with the copy of inquiry report and he was permitted to make the representation against the same. The Disciplinary Authority after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case has imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has failed to point out any shortcomings during the course of inquiry. The penalty imposed upon the petitioner commensurate with the alleged misconduct. The penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner stipulated under rule 11 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 after holding inquiry as per rule 14. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (R.B. Misra), Acting Chief Justice (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 31.8.2009. *awasthi*