HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 4405/2008 (OA No.1135/1996) Date of Decision: May 8, 2009 S. N. Monga ……. Petitioner Versus H.P. State Electricity Board & Ors. ….. Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the petitioner : Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For respondent No.1: Ms. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- “(i) that the order dated 2.2.96, Annexure A-1 be kindly held illegal and quashed. The applicant be held entitled to the consequential benefits flowing to him after quashing Annexure A-1, such as, confirmation as Assistant Engineer, promotion as Assistant Executive Engineer, release of time scale after 9 years and 16 years of service, promotion as Executive Engineer from the relevant dates alongwith monetary benefits with interest at the rate of 18 percent per annum. (ii) that the seniority of the applicant be restored above respondents No.2 to 4 by least promoting the applicant as Executive Engineer with effect from 18.1.1994, that is, when the first junior person that is respondent -2 was promoted as Executive Engineer. 2 (iii) that the respondent no.1 Board be directed to calculate all the payments due to the applicant after quashing Annexure A-1 and to pay the same to the applicant within the time bound period alongwith interest at the rate of 18 percent per annum. (iv) that the respondents may be directed to produce the entire record pertaining to the case of the applicant for the perusal of this Hon’ble Tribunal. (v) That exemplary costs be kindly warded against the respondent -1 Board and in favour of the applicant because of the highly unust and illegal treatment meted out to the applicant over the years.” Annexure A-1 is the order dated 2.2.1996, whereby following penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner; “i) Recovery of Rs.3978.65 paise from the pay of the officer, i.e. 50% of the total loss. ii) Censure.” While serving as Junior Engineer, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and the memorandum dated 29.12.1992, containing articles of charges was issued. The explanation furnished by the delinquent Officer did not find favour with the respondent-Board, as such, the inquiry proceedings were initiated. In his report, the Inquiry Officer specifically concluded that the charges against the petitioner, of having caused wrongful loss to the Board could not be established. As such, the petitioner had not violated any of the provisions of Rule 3(1)(i)(ii) & (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. 3 Admittedly, the inquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority, disagreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, without issuing any notice and affording opportunity to the petitioner, passed the impugned order dated 2.2.1996 imposing a penalty. In the reply, the respondents have categorically admitted this fact. In the petition, the petitioner specifically pleaded as under:- (9) that as the letter dated 2.2.96 did not convey the conclusion of the enquiry report to the applicant nor was the copy of enquiry report supplied to the applicant at any point in time, therefore, the applicant who was at a loss to understand as to how the penalty had been imposed by the respondent -1 Board requested for a copy of enquiry report from the respondent-1 Board. (10) That the respondent -1 Board vide letter dated 28.2.96 forwarded a copy of the enquiry report to the applicant in continuation of the office order dated 2.2.96 vide which the penalty has been imposed upon the applicant. A copy of letter dated 26.2.96 alongwith the copy of enquiry report is being annexed as Annexure A-2. (11) That the applicant was surprised to note the contents of the enquiry report wherein the applicant had been exonerated by the Inquiry Officer by holding that the charge framed against the applicant could not be established during the enquiry and that the applicant had maintained absolute integrity and devotion to duty. Therefore, the order dated 2.2.96, 4 Annexure A-1 was in contradiction to the findings of the enquiry report.” In response thereto, respondents have stated as under:- “ Para-6 (9): The contention of the applicant against this para is wrong, hence denied. In reply it is submitted that copy of enquiry report was subsequently supplied to the applicant before the request of the applicant was received. Para-6 (10): The contents of this para being matter of record calls for no reply. Para-6 (11): In reply this para, it is submitted that the decision has been taken by the competent authority in accordance with provisions under Rule 15 of CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 after recording its own findings on the inquiry report for imposition of penalties.” The Apex Court in P.N.B. & Ors. v. Kunj Behari Misra (1998) 7 SCC 84, has held that the disciplinary authority is required to give opportunity of representation to charged employee before differing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer which are favourable to the charged employee. In the present case, no opportunity was afforded. In terms of the impugned order, penalty of recovery of amount has been imposed. It definitely entails civil consequences. Without having complied with the principles of natural justice, the said order ought not to have been passed. In the circumstances, Annexure A-1 is quashed. Shockingly, the respondents did not even dispose off the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner. 5 Petition was originally filed before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and admitted on 13.11.1996. Recovery, pursuant to Annexure A-1 was stayed till further orders. This order is in operation till date. Petitioner has since retired. Whether to continue with the proceedings or not is for the authorities to decide. In the event of the respondents deciding to continue with the inquiry proceedings, they shall proceed from the stage of the submission of the inquiry report. The action initiated, if any, shall be concluded within a period of four months from today. Subject to the outcome of the decision or inquiry, service/monetary benefits as prayed for by the petitioner shall be accorded and released immediately, in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition is disposed of. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. May 8, 2009 (rana)