IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 5226 of 2008. Decided on: 23.06.2010. __________________________________________________________ Habib Mohammad. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. M.R. Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral): The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for excess consumption of 125.62 bags of cement valuing Rs.6,533/-. The S.D.O(C), Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur was appointed as Inquiry Officer. He submitted his report to the disciplinary authority. The Inquiry Officer has concluded that the excess consumption of 125.62 bags of cement was within the admissible discrepancy of 5%. The report of the Inquiry Officer was agreed to by the disciplinary authority and consequently, charges framed against the petitioner under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 were quashed. Once the charges stood quashed as per order dated 11.2.1997, the consequences were to ensue. It has come in the reply that after the quashing of the charges framed against the petitioner under 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, the dues have been released to the petitioner. Since the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed as per contents of the reply, the present petition is disposed of having become infructuous. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. June 23, 2010. (sck).