IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.703 of 2008 Decided on : January 8, 2010 Devinder Sharma …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) By means of the present Writ Petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner, who had been working as Kanoongo, at the relevant time, has sought judicial review of order, dated 4th January, 2008 of the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal (now abolished), whereby his Original Application No.2210 of 1993, challenging the order of the respondents visiting him with penalty of stoppage of two increments, has been dismissed. 2. Facts, which need to be noticed for the disposal of the Writ Petition, lie in a narrow compass. Petitioner was working as Kanoongo, in the year 1987, at a place called Rehan, in the Settlement Department. He carried out demarcation of the boundary of the lands of one Milkhi Ram and one Banarsi Dass. Milkhi Ram made a complaint to the Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… Tehsildar that the demarcation had not been correctly given and that wrong demarcation led to the felling of six trees standing on his land. That complaint was enquired into by the Tehsildar and it was found that the petitioner had not given the demarcation correctly. On the basis of that report of Tehsildar, Settlement Officer, Kangra, initiated departmental action against the petitioner. He was charge- sheeted for major penalty. Enquiry was conducted under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules. Enquiring Officer exonerated the petitioner. However, the Disciplinary Authority, i.e. Settlement Officer, Kangra, disagreed with report of the Enquiring Authority and imposed the penalty of stoppage of two increments, vide order dated 14th June, 1988, copy Annexure P-4. Petitioner appealed against this order (Annexure P-4) of the Settlement Officer to the Appellate Authority. His appeal was dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner, vide order dated 30th June, 1989, copy Annexure P-6. Revision filed against the order of the Divisional Commissioner was dismissed by the State Government. 3. Petitioner, aggrieved by the orders of the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority and the State Government, approached the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, by filing Original Application No.2210 of 1993. 4. Main contention raised by the petitioner before the Tribunal was that the Disciplinary Authority recorded …3… the finding of disagreeing with the Enquiring Authority, without affording him any opportunity to show cause and that it passed the order disagreeing with the finding of the Enquiring Authority as also the order of imposition of penalty (both the orders are composite) behind the back of the petitioner, without hearing him. 5. Learned Administrative Tribunal dismissed the Original Application without dwelling upon the aforesaid main contention raised by the petitioner. It simply stated that even though the Enquiring Authority had exonerated the petitioner, in the earlier enquiry conducted by the Tehsildar (which enquiry had been conducted without associating the petitioner), the petitioner had been found guilty of giving wrong demarcation and that report had been relied upon and proved as evidence by the Department, during disciplinary enquiry. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Assistant Advocate General. 7. View taken by the learned Tribunal is perverse, on the face of it. Disciplinary Authority could not have disagreed with the finding of the Enquiring Authority, relying upon earlier report of preliminary enquiry conducted by the Tehsildar, and that too without affording any opportunity of showing the cause to the petitioner, as to why Enquiring Authority’s finding exonerating the petitioner should not be reversed. …4… 8. Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training, vide O.M. No.11012/22/94-Estt.(A), dated 27th November, 1995, recorded below Rule 15 of CCS (CCA)Rules, vide Note 7(A), has issued instructions that whenever a delinquent official is exonerated by the Enquiring Authority and the Disciplinary Authority intends to disagree with the finding of exoneration and seeks to reverse that finding and hold the delinquent official guilty, it should record its tentative views and communicate those views alongwith the report of the Enquiring Authority to the delinquent official, alongwith the enquiry report, before taking the final decision. This procedure was not followed by the Settlement Officer, Kangra, in his capacity as Disciplinary Authority, in the present case. The aforesaid instructions are based on the principle of natural justice that no one should be condemned unheard. 9. Disciplinary Authority, in the present case, not only violated the aforesaid instructions, but also violated the principle of natural justice, by holding the delinquent official guilty (despite the fact that the Enquiring Authority exonerated him) without hearing him. 10. In view of the abovestated position, we allow the present Writ Petition, set aside the impugned order of the learned Tribunal and quash Annexure P-4, order of the Disciplinary Authority, i.e. Settlement Officer, Kangra, as upheld by the Divisional Commissioner in appeal, vide …5… order, copy Annexure P-6, and by the State Government, in revision, vide order, copy Annexure P-8. The Disciplinary Authority shall, however, be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner from the stage of receipt of the report of the Enquiring Authority and while so proceeding it shall follow the principles of natural justice as also the Rules and instructions contained in CCS (CCA) Rules. Writ Petition stands disposed of. ( Surjit Singh ), J January 8, 2010(sd) ( Surinder Singh ), J