IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.:9229 of 2008. Decided on: 23.12.2011. _____________________________________________ Shri Ram Singh Thakur son of late Shri B.S. Rathore, Retired S.M.S. (Horticulture), resident of House No.21, Housing Board Colony, Saproon, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh through its Secretary (Horticulture) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-2. … Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. L.N. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Petitioner was posted as Assistant Development Officer, Horticulture (Headquarter) at Solan in the year 1990. He was served with a charge-sheet under Rule 14 of the Central 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as “the CCS(CCA) Rules” for short) on 26.7.2000. However, the same was cancelled and fresh memorandum was issued to the petitioner under Rule 16 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 vide memorandum dated 20.1.2001. He filed reply to the same on 19.2.2001. A decision was taken by the respondent on 23.8.2001 to continue with the memorandum dated 20.1.2001 since the petitioner has to retire on 31.8.2001. The competent authority, i.e. Secretary (Horticulture) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh has imposed minor penalty of recovery of ` 10,150/- from the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity of the petitioner vide order dated 19.10.2002. The incident pertains to the year 1990 and the notice has been issued to the petitioner under Rule 16 of the CCS(CCA) Rules on 20.1.2001, after a period of one decade. The penalty has been imposed on the petitioner without holding any inquiry. 2. It will be apt at this stage to refer to decision No.2 appended below Rule 16 notified vide O.M. dated 28.10.1985. It is evident from the language employed in decision No.2 appended below Rule 16 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 that on receipt of representation of a Government servant concerned on the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour communicated to him, the Disciplinary Authority should apply its mind to all facts and circumstances and reasons urged in the representation for - 3 - holding a detailed inquiry and form an opinion whether an inquiry is necessary or not. 3. In order to ensure whether there is due compliance of decision No.2 dated 20.10.1985 appended below Rule 16 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, records were called for. However, it is not borne out from the records that the competent authority formed an opinion whether inquiry was necessary or not after going through the reply filed by the petitioner on 19.2.2001. It was necessary for the competent authority to comply with decision No.2 referred to above. In the instant case, earlier the memo was issued to the petitioner under Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965. The same was cancelled and only thereafter memorandum under Rule 16 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 was issued on 20.1.2001. A sum of ` 10,150/- has been ordered to be recovered from the petitioner, that too, from his Death-cum- Retirement Gratuity without forming any opinion whether an inquiry was necessary or not. 4. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, petition is allowed. Annexure A-4, dated 19.10.2002 is quashed and set aside. The amount of ` 10,150/-, if already recovered from the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity of the petitioner, shall be refunded to him with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, within a period of six week after the date of production of certified copy of this judgment by the - 4 - petitioner before the competent authority. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. December 23, 2010. (sck).