IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 4319 of 2010 Reserved on: 19.07.2011 Decided on: 26.07.2011 Surinder Kumar …Petitioner. Versus H.R.T.C. & others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed that the punishment orders qua the petitioner be quashed and set aside and the pay of the petitioner be re-fixed. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he alongwith a number of other persons had filed an appeal in 2002 against the punishments imposed much earlier in 1986-87. In the case of the petitioner, the penalty order and dates are of 06.10.1986, 20.02.1987 and 28.11.1987. The grievance of the petitioner is that in case of other employees, since there was no record that 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. any enquiry was conducted, the penalties were set aside, but in the case of the petitioner, this benefit was not given to him. The petitioner must stand on his own legs. According to the respondents, the case of the petitioner was different from the other employees since in their case, no record was available. 3. This Court is not going into the correctness of the orders passed by the HRTC in respect of the other employees but in the present case, the petitioner has challenged the penalty orders dated 06.10.1986, 20.02.1987 and 28.11.1987, whereby one increment was stopped with cumulative effect. An appeal was admittedly filed on 14th February, 2002, after fifteen years of the orders being passed. 4. The stand of the respondents is that the record is not traceable and must have been destroyed. No employer can be expected to keep records for an indefinite period of time and an employee must file an appeal within the time prescribed by law. 5. In the present case, this Court had summoned the record and gone through the three orders dated 06.10.1986, 20.02.1987 and 28.11.1987. As far as first case is concerned, para 4 of the order reads as follows: “and whereas the Inquiry Officer inquired into the case and came to the conclusion that the charges stand proved against Shri Surinder Kumar, Conductor.” The charge sheet dated 29.11.1984 is also available on service record of the official. The second charge sheet is dated 07.05.1986 and the order passed thereupon is dated 20.02.1987 and here also it is recorded that the Inquiry Officer has submitted his inquiry report and, thereafter the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner Surinder Kumar, who responded to the same. Similar is the order dated 28.11.1987. All officials' acts are supposed to be properly done and when the orders were passed, it was clearly reflected in the orders that inquiry had been conducted. Now after almost 15 years, the petitioner wants to re-open the matter on the ground that no inquiry was conducted. This cannot be permitted to be done especially when in the officials record it is mentioned that the inquiry was conducted. 6. Therefore, I find no merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. (Deepak Gupta) Judge July 26, 2011 (rajni)