IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 11903/2008 Decided on:27.12.2010 _____________________________________________ Ram Parkash Sharma. …Petitioner. Versus H.R.T.C. and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). A notice under rule 16 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 was issued to the petitioner vide memo dated 25.5.2004 for dereliction of duties and for causing loss to the respondent-corporation to the tune of Rs. 21,824/-. Petitioner filed reply to the same on 4.10.2004. However, vide office order dated 9.12.2004, recovery of Rs. 15,000/- has been ordered to be effected in 30 equal installments from the petitioner. It is admitted fact that the petitioner has filed reply to the show cause notice dated 25.5.2004. However, the same has not been taken into 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 consideration in right perspective by the Regional Manager while dealing with the matter. Once the reply had been filed by the petitioner, it ought to have been considered by taking into consideration all the pleas/grounds taken in the reply. Accordingly, there is violation of principles of natural justice. 2. Consequently, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-4 dated 9.12.2004 is quashed and set aside. In normal circumstances, respondent-corporation ought to have been granted opportunity to proceed with the matter in accordance with law, however, since the petitioner has retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation in the year 2009, he will suffer immense economical hardships, as such the proceedings are closed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 27.12.2010 *awasthi*