IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No.: 6207 of 2008 Date of decision: 14.9.2010 Vijay Singh Panta …..Petitioner Versus H.P. State Coop. Agriculture & Rural Dev. Bank & Ors ….. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A.G. _____________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J(Oral). 1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the grant of following amongst other reliefs:- “i) That the impugned Annexure A-3, dated 21.5.1999, whereby the major penalty of reduction to a lower stage has been imposed upon the applicant, may be quashed and set aside; ii) That the impugned Annexure:a-4 dated 28.10.99 may also be quashed and set aside with a direction to the respondents to release the pay and allowances to the applicant w.e.f. 25.4.1996 to 23.2.1999 and to pay arrears thereof alongwith interest @ 18% per annum; iii) That promotion orders issued, vide Annexure:A-5, dated 23.7.1999, whereby the respondents No.2 to 8 have been promoted from 2 Grade-III Officers to Grade-II Officers may be quashed and set aside; iv) That the respondent No.1 may be directed to consider the case of the applicant for promotion to Grade-II Officer from the date his juniors have been promoted with all consequential benefits like arrears of salary, seniority etc.” 2. The undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner in the year 1996 was working as Grade-III Officer with the H.P. State Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank(hereinafter referred to as the ‘respondent Bank’). On 25.4.1996, the petitioner was placed under suspension and serious allegations were leveled against him that he has embezzled certain amounts. He was charge- sheeted on 1.6.1996 and his services were ordered to be terminated on 25.9.1996 after the completion of enquiry. 3. Aggrieved by the order of termination, the petitioner has filed an Original Application in the Erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal numbered as O.A. 773/97. In the Original Application he prayed for the grant of following reliefs: “i) That the impugned Annexures A-3, A-4 & A-7 dated 3.9.1996, 25.9.1996 and 17.3.1997 respectively may be quashed and set aside; and ii) That the respondents may be directed to re- instate the applicant as Grade-III Officer with all consequential benefits like seniority, arrears of salary etc. alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.” 3 4. The Original Application was partially allowed and the operative portion of the order reads as follows:- “In this case, a copy of enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner before passing of the impugned orders of termination. Had it been supplied to him the applicant could have known the mind of the Enquiry Officer and could effectively defend himself. Thus, non-supply of the enquiry report has definitely caused prejudice in this case. Accordingly, we set-aside the punishment and quash the impugned order dated September 25, 1996(Annexure-A4) and direct the respondents to re-instate the applicant with liberty to hold fresh inquiry from the stage of furnishing the Inquiry report. The application is disposed of in terms of above with no orders as to cost. The parties be informed accordingly.” 5. The enquiry as noted above was to continue from the stage of supply of the copy of enquiry report. Thereafter on consideration of the enquiry report on 21.5.1999, impugned order (Annexure A-3) was passed whereby the petitioner was visited with major penalty and reduced to a lower stage of pay and it was further directed that the petitioner shall not be granted any increment till 21.5.2000 and increment shall be granted to him at the initial stage of scale payable. 6. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed the present petition. The first challenge of the petitioner is to the 4 validity of the enquiry report. In these proceedings, this Court cannot go into the correctness of the enquiry report or otherwise. There is no challenge to the procedure established by the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer has given a finding of fact that serious irregularities, acts of omission and commission were done by the petitioner. On these findings of fact the petitioner was visited with major penalty. I see no reason to interfere with the penalty imposed upon the petitioner hence the first relief cannot be granted to the petitioner. 7. The second relief claimed by the petitioner is that the respondents be directed to release the pay and allowances payable to the petitioner for the period from 25.4.1996 when he was placed under suspension to 23.2.1999 when he was reinstated in service. As noted above in the Original Application filed before the Tribunal the petitioner had prayed for the identical relief. This relief was not granted to the petitioner and it is a settled law that when any Court or Judicial Authority does not grant relief which has been specifically prayed for the only inference is that that the prayer of the party has been rejected. The order of the Tribunal has attained finality and in these collateral proceedings the directions passed in the earlier petition cannot be challenged. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the second relief. 8. The third relief claimed by the petitioner is that during the period when he was under suspension some persons who were junior to him were promoted as Grade-II Officers. 5 The petitioner was not considered for promotion and now a direction be issued to the respondents to promote him. The facts of this case are that the petitioner was not in service when the promotions of the private respondents were effected. There was no requirement of following the sealed cover procedure since the petitioner was not an employee of the respondent Bank on the date when the promotions were ordered. No doubt, the petitioner was reinstated in service but the respondent Bank was given the right to continue the enquiry proceedings from the stage of supply of copy of enquiry report. On completion of the enquiry, the petitioner has been visited with the penalty of reduction to the lower scale with a further rider that he would not be entitled for grant of any increment till 21.5.2000. It is thus obvious that prior to 21.5.2000 the petitioner could not have been promoted since the enquiry proceedings were pending. Therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 9. In view of above discussion, I find no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No orders as to costs. (Deepak Gupta), J September, 14 2010 (VT)