IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 2110 of 2008 Date of Decision : May 18, 2010 Ashok Kumar Singh …Petitioner. Versus: State of H.P. & Anr. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner: Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate For the respondents: Mr. R. M. Bisht, Dy. A.G. and Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy.A.G. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral). Record perused and returned. 2. Petitioner has prayed for the following relief: “I. That Annexure-C that is orders dated 7.7.1992 and 22.1.1993 be set aside and quashed. II. That the whole record of the case and that of the O.A. No. 894 of 1992 be called for. III. That the orders of recovery dated 7.7.1992 and 22.1.1993 be set aside and quashed. IV. That this application be allowed. V. Any other writ direction or order which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper be passed in favour of the applicant and against the respondents.” 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. Petitioner was working as a driver when disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on 5.10.1990. Petitioner was served with the following articles of charge: “Article No.I:- Sh. Ashok Kumar Singh while functioning as work charged driver during the month Oct. 1984 in IPH Div. No.I, Solan used Govt. Jeep HPS-1809 on 12/10/84 without taking permission of the competent authority. The Jeep was used when there was no such urgency. Article No.II:- The jeep was parked on the wrong side i.e. valley side of the road in steep grade at village Rabon and no Gutka/Store was provided which resulted into rolling down of the jeep which resulted into death of one person injury to another person and further causing loss to the extent of Rs.17861.20. Article No.III:- Sh. Ashok Kumar Singh in the date of 12/10/84 in Log Book of Jeep HPS-1809 has shown jeep leaving Solan at 9.00 PM and reading has been shown as 04760. The time and reading recorded in the log book are in overwriting and clearly establish that both the time and reading are ficticious. Article No.IV:- Sh. Ashok Kumar Singh Work charged Driver gave a false report to his assistant Engineer regarding his arrest and release on bail by the Police authorities.” 4. In fact petitioner admitted having misconducted himself in terms of letter dated 13.10.1984. The Inquiry Officer appointed to look into the charges submitted his report on 30.1.1992 (Annexure RD). Based on the same, the Disciplinary Authority passed order dated 6.7.1992 which reads as under:- “The undersigned is enclosing a copy of the Inquiry report on each article of charge submitted by the officer appointed to inquire into the charges against Sh. Ashok Kumar Singh, Driver. On a careful consideration of the inquiry report aforesaid, the undersigned agrees with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, so 3 far as it relates to articles of charge No.I to IV and for reasons stated in the attached report which holds that articles of charge No.I to IV with the Inquiry Officer has held are proved. The undersigned, has, therefore, come to the conclusion that Sh. Ashok Kumar Singh, Driver has been found to be at fault. It is, therefore, ordered that the loss caused to the Govt. by negligence and breach of order by the said Driver, a recovery of Rs.17,861.20 paise (Rs.Seventeen thousand eight hundred sixtyone and paise twenty only) be effected from Sh. Ashok Kumar Singh, Driver. It is further ordered that recovery be effected @Rs.300/- P.M. (Rs. Three hundred per month) with immediate effect. Sh. Ashok Kumar Singh, Driver is also warned for his lapses in using the Govt. vehicle without prior approval of the competent authority. The receipt of this memorandum be acknowledged. Sd/- (Er. G. C. Guupta) Superintending Engineer I&PH Circle, Nahan (HP)” 5. Ms. Ranjana Parmar, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed this order on the ground that the Inquiry Officer did not conduct the proceedings in accordance with Law. 6. I am afraid the contention needs to be rejected. I have myself scrutinized the record pertaining to the disciplinary proceedings. The Inquiry Officer at all times had afforded adequate opportunity to the petitioner. In fact petitioner had admitted having misconducted himself in terms of letter dated 13.10.1984 which was noticed by the Inquiry Officer himself in the following terms : “According to the statement of inaputation (sic) of misconduct or misbehaviour Sh. Ashok Kumar Singh use Govt. Jeep HPS-1809 on 12/10/84 without taking permission 4 of competent authority. This had been admitted in his letter dated 13/10/84 to the address of Assistant Engineer, IPH Sub Divn. Solan and further conformed by Sh. G. D. Attri under his letter dated 29/10/84 to the address of said Assistant Engineer. During the preliminary inquiry conducted by Sh. O. P. Singh Executive Engineer, Sh. Ashok Kumar Singh has admitted that there was no emergency for him to use the Govt. jeep.” 7. The Inquiry Officer has also observed that the delinquent official was not interested in the proceedings and at no stage he tried to put any defence against the charges. The imputation of charges was served upon him. Record also reveals that five page statement of the delinquent official was recorded by the Inquiry Officer. Also adequate opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to lead evidence in support of his case. Opportunity to cross-examine was afforded to him. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that inquiry had been conducted in violation of Law. 8. In view of the admission made by the delinquent official it was open for the Disciplinary Authority to have taken action thereupon. But however the authority chose to hold a proper inquiry. The Inquiry Officer took into account the admission made by the delinquent official. It is true that the inquiry report is not very happily worded but nonetheless the findings are supported from the material proved on record. 9. In fact I am of the considered view that the respondents- authority have easily let off the petitioner by taking a very lenient view. Only damages caused to the vehicle which was unauthorisedly taken by the petitioner have been directed to be recovered from him. It was a case 5 where the disciplinary authority could have taken severe action. Misconduct was quite serious. 10. No legally enforceable right of the petitioner stands breached. Hence, the present petition, without merit is dismissed. 11. The interim order dated 1.3.1993 stands vacated. Remaining amount be recovered from the petitioner as per Annexure-A. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. May 18, 2010 (rana)