IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 5240/2008 Decided on:3.9.2009 ________________________________________________ Prakash Chand. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … 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. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma and Mr. Anil Jaswal, Deputy Advocate Generals for the respondents. ________________________________________________________ The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner vide office order dated 19.9.2006. Sh. Mahinder Singh, Sub Divisional Police Officer, Barsar was appointed as Inquiry Officer. He submitted the report to the Disciplinary Authority. The charges levelled against him stood proved during the departmental inquiry. He was permitted to appear before the Superintendent of Police vide order dated 30.12.2006. The Disciplinary Authority issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 4.1.2007 why the punishment of 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 dismissal be not inflicted upon him. He was permitted to file the reply within ten days. He requested for the supply of the copy of inquiry report on 6.1.2007. The copy of the inquiry report was supplied to him as per the contents of the reply on 11.1.2007. He approached the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of present petition. The learned Tribunal directed the parties to maintain status quo on 19.1.2007. We have gone through the petition and the reply filed by the respondents. The present petition has been filed against the issuance of show cause notice dated 4.1.2007. It was necessary for him to file the reply to show cause notice and, if any penalty was imposed upon him, he could assail the same. However, now the fact of the matter is that the copy of the inquiry report has been supplied to him on 11.1.2007. In fact, the petitioner had prayed for the supply of the inquiry report on 6.1.2007 (vide Annexure A-5). The petitioner has not made out a case that how he has been prejudiced by the non-supply of the inquiry report. However, in the interest of justice since the copy of the inquiry report, as noticed above, has been supplied, the respondents are permitted to proceed with the matter further in accordance with law. The proceedings shall be completed by the Disciplinary Authority within a period of eight weeks from today. Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate has submitted that the FIR was also registered against his client on the basis of which challan was put up in the Court. However, his client has been acquitted by the trial court. The Disciplinary Authority shall also take into consideration this 3 fact into consideration while dealing with the matter. The petitioner was acquitted on 11.8.2008 in case No.1 of 2007. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is disposed of. The interim order dated 19.1.2007 stands vacated. No costs. (R.B. Misra), Acting Chief Justice (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 3.9.2009. *awasthi*