IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 1726 of 2008 Date of Decision: 25.03.2010 __________________________________________________________ Sh. G.C. Thakur. ….Petitioner. Versus H.P. General Industries Corporation ….Respondents. Ltd. & Others. ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 __________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents No. 1 & 2: Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, Advocate. __________________________________________________________ Per Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral) The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in withholding his Gratuity, Leave Encashment and other retrial benefits. The basic stand taken by the respondent is that the petitioner was responsible for causing some losses to the Corporation. All these losses are not yet to be established and there is nothing on record to establish the so called acts of the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that a fact finding inquiry was initiated and its report is to be placed before the Board of Directors. Be that it may be, we cannot accept the submission of the respondent that this inquiry can be kept pending indefinitely and can be used to deny the benefits due to the petitioner on retirement. It is trite to observe that unless a 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 regular inquiry is held and the petitioner is given a chance of being heard and to put forth his case, he can not be held guilty of any misconduct nor any action can be taken against him. In these circumstances we direct the respondents to complete all the proceedings within a period of three months from today but not later than 31st July, 2010. It will be open to the petitioner to urge in defence before the Inquiry Officer inter alia that a regular inquiry is not maintainable in law or that the respondents did not have any authority to initiate such inquiry after his retirement. We also make it clear that it will be open to the petitioner to take all such defences in his favour as may be permissible to him under law. Writ Petition disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. We also clarify that in case all the proceedings are not completed on or before 31st July, 2010, the petitioner shall be deemed to be entitled for all retrial benefits as claimed by him. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge March 25, 2010 (Kuldip Singh), (KRS) Judge