IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No.8453 of 2010 Decided on: September 23, 2011. Bakshi Ram. …. Petitioner. Versus H.P.S.E.B and others. …. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Tarun Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Ms. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J (oral): Petitioner vide Office Order dated 31.5.1984 (Annexure P-2) was visited with penalty of reduction of three stages from `450/- to `420/- in the pay scale of `400-10-450-15-600 for a period of three years w.e.f. 24.3.88, having been found guilty in a domestic enquiry. It was further directed that he being Assistant Lineman would not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and that on the expiry of this period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay. The 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? - 2 - Disciplinary Authority further ordered that the entire period of his suspension from 11.4.1984 to 9.11.987 shall be treaded as ‘Dies-Non’. 2. By means of the present petition, the petitioner sought the quashment of Annexure P-2 aforesaid and also a direction to verify his services with respect to the period which was held to be ‘Dies-Non’ since the period of suspension aforesaid was held to be unwarranted by the judgment dated 10.11.1987 of the Erstwhile Administrative Tribunal passed in OA No.44/1986. 3. The aforesaid order of penalty was appealed against by the petitioner and his appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 15.9.1988. Petitioner was superannuated on 31.3.2006 after attaining the age of his retirement. Thereafter even his mercy petition was allegedly dismissed. 4. As a matter of fact, the petitioner was charge- sheeted on the charges mentioned in Annexure P-2 and after departmental inquiry with respect to Article of Charge-V, he was held guilty and awarded the - 3 - penalty as aforesaid in the year 1984. A perusal of the judgment of the Tribunal shows that the petitioner earlier in a departmental enquiry was also held guilty and penalty was imposed. Again for subsequent misconduct, he was charge-sheeted as per Annexure P-2 and held guilty. Though his suspension period was held to be unwarranted, but his departmental appeal was dismissed. His penalty was upheld vide order dated 15.9.88. 5. The petitioner did not challenge this order till his retirement on 31.3.2006, whereas the present petition has been filed now in December, 2010 that is after about 22 years without explaining delay. Thus no allowance can be given to the petitioner. 6. Therefore, the petition is dismissed, on the ground of delay and latches, so also, the pending application(s), if any. (Surinder Singh), September 23, 2011. Judge. (Pds)