IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 14453 of 2008 Date of Decision : 23.11.2011 Ram Chand Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Dy. Advocate General. Justice Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “ i) That the action of the respondents in issuing the charge-sheet against the applicant vide Annexure A-1 and A-3 may kindly be quashed and set-aside forthwith. ii) That the inquiry, the inquiry report may be set- aside forthwith. iii) That the action of the respondents in imposing the penalty on 21.3.2006 vide Annexure A-10, may kindly be quashed and set-aside. iv) That the records of the case may also be called for and perused. v) That the costs of the application may also be granted.” Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Annexure-A-10 is the order dated 21st March, 2006 passed by the Director of Elementary Education, whereby the following penalty is imposed:- “Now, therefore, after careful consideration of the inquiry report, keeping in view the above mentioned facts and the gravity of misconduct committed by the said Sh. Ram Chand, Sr. Asstt., the undersigned, after due application of the mind, for good and sufficient reasons, in pursuance of Rule 11 (v) read with Govt. instruction No.12 under Rule 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, hereby imposes a major penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a period of two years upon the said Sh. Ram Chand, Sr. Asstt. It is, therefore, ordered that the pay of the said Sh. Ram Chand be reduced by one stage from Rs.7440/- to Rs.7220/-in the time scale of pay of 5800-9200 for a period of two years w.e.f. 1-04-2006 to 31.03.2008 and the said Sh. Ram Chand, Sr. Asstt. will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and that on the expiry of this period, the reduction will not have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay. Besides this, in exercise of the powers conferred vide rule 11 (iii) read with Govt. instruction (24) below Rule 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the undersigned, hereby orders that Rs.5 lacs, the pecuniary loss caused to the State exchequer due to negligence of the said Sh. Ram Chand, Sr. Asstt., may also be recovered from him at the rate of Rs.6747/- per month from his salary in 74 equal monthly installments and the balance amount, if any, be recovered from his retirement dues, at the time of his retirement under the provisions laid in Rule 73 (1) to (3) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.” 3 3. Record produced by the respondents reveals that petitioner’s contention that inquiry report was not supplied to him, is correct. Before imposition of penalty neither the inquiry report was supplied to the petitioner nor was he afforded opportunity of hearing/show cause. 4. As such, as prayed for, without actually going into the merits of the other contentions raised in the petition, Annexure A-10 is quashed with a direction to the competent authority to supply the inquiry report to the petitioner and get the disciplinary proceedings completed, in accordance with law, at the earliest and preferably within a period of six months from the date of supply of the inquiry report/production of certified copy of this judgment. 5. With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy dasti. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. 23rd November, 2011 k.sharma