IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 12056 of 2008 Date of Decision: 8th October, 2010 Roop Lal Petitioner Versus H.P. Financial Corporation Ltd. Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol,J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the petitioner : Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “7.1 That the impugned order dated 30.8.2003 at Annexure A-3 as also order dated 9.7.2004, Annexure A-4, may kindly be quashed and set aside 7.2. That applicant may be held entitled to reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits. 7.3. That the respondent corporation may be directed to produce records pertaining to this case for the perusal of this Hon’ble Tribunal. 7.4. Any other relief deemed proper in the circumstances may also be granted.” 2. While working as a Peon petitioner was charge-sheeted for having misconducted himself during the course of his employment. Statement containing articles of charge was served upon him. 1Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment? Inquiry Officer was appointed to look into the charges. He submitted his report with findings holding that while on duty petitioner was found in a drunken condition and as per the medical report he had consumed alcohol and created nuisance in the Hospital. Charge being serious, vide order dated 30.8.2003 the Disciplinary authority imposed penalty of dismissal from service. Petitioner preferred an appeal and by taking a lenient view the Appellate Authority reduced the penalty of dismissal from service to that of compulsory retirement. This was so done by taking a lenient view. 3. At all times orders were passed after due observance of principles of natural justice and provisions of law. Adequate opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner at all stages. Petitioner was found in an aberrated condition. He misconducted himself and caused embarrassment to the employer. 4. From the record, it could not be pointed out as to how any legally enforceable right of the petitioner stands violated. Disciplinary proceedings cannot be faulted on any ground. Consequently, no ground for interference is made out. The respondent-authority has already taken a lenient view. As such, the present petition is dismissed. 8th October, 2010 (Sanjay Karol) (C) Judge. 2