IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 836 of 2004 Decided on: December 23, 2008. H.R.T.C. & Anr. Petitioners Vs. Mohammad Ali Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners : Mr. H.S. Rawat, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Advocate. Per Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioners have sought judicial review of the order dated 2.6.2004, of the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal (now defunct), whereby respondent Mohammad Ali’s Original Application, challenging the order of his removal from service, has been allowed and said order of his removal from service having been quashed and he has been ordered to be reinstated. 2. Respondent Mohammad Ali was employed, as conductor with the petitioners. On April 10th 1990, a Flying Squad of the petitioners, checked a bus, on which the respondent was conductor, at Harbatpur in Uttarakhand and found that he had not issued tickets to certain passengers, though he had charged a sum of Rs. 128/- from them. He was Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… charge-sheeted. When he denied the charges, Inquiry Officer was appointed. Inquiry Officer submitted report holding him guilty. The Disciplinary Authority then passed the order of respondent removal from service. That order was challenged by the respondent by filing O.A. No. 75 of 1993, which, vide order dated 10th March 1993, was ordered to be treated as appeal/representation by the Managing Director, HRTC, as it was noticed that no appeal in accordance with the provisions of the Disciplinary Rules had been filed by the respondent. He, thereafter made a petition to the Appellate Authority i.e. Managing Director, HRTC, which was dismissed on 24th March 1993. 3. Respondent felt aggrieved by that order and filed another Original Application being 599 of 1993. That was also disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to treat that application as representation. That application, ordered to be treated as representation, was dismissed by the petitioners on 29th June 1993. Respondent then filed a Civil Writ Petition in this Court, which was dismissed on December 30th 1994, being not maintainable. Thereafter, the respondent filed Original Application No. 371 of 1995 before the Tribunal and it was in this application that the impugned order has been passed. 4. Tribunal has ordered the reinstatement of the respondent, without pointing out any error or defect in the inquiry report. Learned Tribunal has not even touched the question, whether the charge, that was framed against the respondent, was established or not. In our considered view …3… without first holding that the inquiry had not been conducted in proper and legal manner or that the charge was not substantiated, the order of reinstatement could not have been passed. The order has been passed by the Tribunal on the premise that the petitioners have not applied their mind while passing the order of penalty. If it was so, the right course for the Tribunal was to have remit the case to the Disciplinary Authority to proceed afresh from the stage of the receipt of the inquiry report or from the stage of the receipt of the representation from the respondent, in case he had already made such a representation (after the submission of report) and to pass appropriate orders regarding penalty in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the relevant rules. 5. Consequently, we allow this writ petition, set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal and remitted the matter to the Disciplinary Authority to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the aforesaid observations and according to the rules, applicable. We direct the Disciplinary Authority to take the final decision within two months, from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Dasti copy be given to the learned counsel for the petitioners, by 26th December 2008, positively and the said counsel shall ensure that the copy reaches the Disciplinary Authority within a week, from its receipt by him. ( R.B. Misra ), J. December 23, 2008(vs) ( Surjit Singh ), J. …4…