IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 9223 of 2008. Decided on: 07.12.2010. __________________________________________________________ Sant Ram. … Petitioner. Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, J. (oral): Petitioner was issued charge sheet under Section 16 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 vide memorandum dated 8.5.2001. In sequel thereto, the petitioner has filed reply vide Annexure A-4. Admittedly, the reply filed by the petitioner has not been taken into consideration in its right perspective. Once, the charge sheet was issued, the reply filed by the petitioner was required to be taken into consideration before passing any adverse order. The purpose of giving reply will be defeated if it is not taken into consideration while imposing the penalty. 2. Consequently, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-6, dated 14.1.2003 is quashed and set aside. The disciplinary authority shall 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - pass fresh orders after taking into consideration the reply filed by the petitioner to memorandum dated 8.5.2001, within a period of two months after the production of copy of the judgment. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. December 07, 2010. (sck).