IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 14525 of 2008 Date of Decision: 5th July, 2011 Rajesh Kumar Petitioner Versus H.R.T.C. and others Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph,C.J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol,J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant: Mr. J.P.Upadhaya, Advocate For the respondents:Mr.Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- (i) That the impugned order dated 28.11.2005 Annexure A/1 passed by the Divisional Manager, HRTC Dharamshala without appreciating the evidence in its true perspective and without applying his mind independently and impartially being a quasi judicial authority in the capacity of Appellate authority may please be declared null and void and accordingly quashed and set aside as the same is ultravires, unconstitutional and unlawful. Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment? 2 (ii) That in order to arrive at a fair and just decision in the matter taking into consideration the facts and circumstances narrated in foregoing paragraphs, the respondents may please be directed to produce all the relevant record of the case. (iii) Any other equitable relief which the Hon’ble Tribunal may deem appropriate to the extent substantial justice to the applicant.” 2. Undisputedly disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner have culminated with the passing of the impugned order, Annexure P-4, with imposition of penalty and the operative portion of the order reads as under:- “Now after careful consideration of the whole cases and entire records by the undersigned, vested his powers in him under CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 hereby imposes the penalty of reduction of his pay by three stages i.e. from Rs.3660/- to Rs.3330/- for the period of three years and on the expiry of reduction period it will have the effected of postponing of his future increments of his pay.” 3. Petitioner was charge-sheeted for having embezzled amounts collected by him in discharge of his duties as a Conductor and also for misbehaving and not cooperating with the checking party. Inquiry Officer 3 appointed to look into the charges found him guilty of the same. 4. In an appeal preferred by the petitioner, penalty was reduced vide order (Annexure A/1), “to the extent of withholding one increment with commrative (sic cumulative) effect.” 5. In our considered view, no ground for interference, at all has been made out in the present petition, principles of natural justice and statutory Rules stand fully complied with. 6. It is alleged that the Inquiry Officer was prejudiced against the petitioner. To substantiate this contention, it is urged that earlier the very same Inquiry officer had appeared as a witness in some other departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner. Now this by itself cannot be a ground of bias or prejudice. During the course of instant inquiry all Principles of natural justice stand fully complied with by the Inquiry Officer. Adequate opportunities of filing replies, leading evidence, examining and cross-examining witnesses were afforded to all concerned. Hence contention urged needs to be rejected. There is no perversity in his findings. 7. We feel that petitioner has already been let off by the authorities by taking a lenient view. He was found guilty of misconduct and the charge was serious. 4 8. For the aforesaid reasons, petition stands dismissed. (Justice Kurian Joseph) Chief Justice 5th July, 2011 (Justice Sanjay Karol) (C) Judge.