IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 2759 of 2008. Decided on: 13.03.2009. Gorkhu Ram. … … … Petitioner. Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Others. … … … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1No. For the petitioner: Mrs. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. He was terminated by the Disciplinary Authority. He assailed his termination by filing the Original Application bearing No.2076/1995 in Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The learned Tribunal on 03.05.1995, directed the Original Application to be treated as representation by the Managing Directed and to decide the same within eight weeks after affording personal hearing to the petitioner. It is Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - apparent from the bare perusal of order, dated 01.09.1995 that the petitioner was not heard. He was required to be heard, as directed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order Annexure-P.1 is quashed and set aside. The Managing Director of the corporation is directed to re-hear the appeal/representation within a period of eight weeks from today after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. The Managing Director is directed to inform the petitioner about the actual date. The Managing Director shall pass a speaking order. No costs. March 13, 2009. (Rajiv Sharma) (rkv). Judge. - 3 -