IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 7312/2008 Reserved on: 26.2.2011 Decided on:3.3.2011 _____________________________________________ Dandu Ram. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner : Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. ____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Patwari in the respondent-department. He remained posted at Patwar Circle, Ner with effect from 1988 to 1991. According to him, he wrote letter to the Deputy Commissioner for carrying out necessary repairs in the existing Patwar Khana, which according to him, was in a dilapidated condition. Patwar Khana was inspected by the Sub Divisional Magistrate (Civil) 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 on 9.12.1988 and the entry to this effect was made in Roznamcha Fard. Thereafter the Patwar Khana was again inspected by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) and Tehsildar. According to the petitioner, he spent ` 2,541.55 for undertaking repairs on the basis of the verbal directions issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner and Sub Divisional Officer (Civil). The inspection was carried out by the Sub Divisional Officer on 11.10.1990 vide Annexure PF. He submitted the vouchers to the competent authority for the payment of ` 2,541.55. However, the same was not released to him. He served the respondents with a legal notice vide Annexure PJ. According to the petitioner, respondents instead of paying a sum of Rs. ` 2,541.55, issued a charge-sheet to him on 12.1.1995 for falsely claiming this amount from Government and pressuring politically to get this money paid to him. He filed the reply to the charge-sheet on 9.2.1995. Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) was appointed as Inquiry Officer. He submitted the report to the Disciplinary Authority on 24.4.1997. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of stoppage of three increments upon the petitioner with cumulative effect vide Annexure PR dated 4.6.1997. He preferred an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner. The 3 Divisional Commissioner vide order dated 5.3.1999 partially accepted the appeal and modified the penalty of “withholding of three increments with cumulative effect” to “withholding of three increments without cumulative effect”. Petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner. He rejected the same on 14.12.1999 vide Annexure PW. He also preferred review petition before his Excellency the Governor of Himachal Pradesh. In review, the penalty was further amended whereby the withholding of three increments without cumulative effect was toned down to stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. 2. Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj has strenuously argued that the impugned orders have been issued by the respondents in vindictive manner. According to him, the inquiry has not been conducted in accordance with law. 3. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that the inquiry has been conducted in accordance with law. He has also contended that petitioner has been dealt with leniently, though the charges levelled against him were duly proved. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 4 5. Case of the petitioner, as per the pleadings, is that he had brought to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner about the existing position of the Patwar Khana on 22.10.1988. According to him, Patwar Khana was in dilapidated condition and the necessary repairs were required to be undertaken to protect the public records. According to him, site was inspected by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) on 9.12.1988 and the entry to this effect was also made in Roznamcha Fard. The site was also inspected by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) and Tehsildar, who directed him orally to undertake the repairs with the assurance that the money will be duly sanctioned and paid to him. However, in Annexure PF/1 dated 11.10.1990, relied upon by the petitioner, it is mentioned that the work was incomplete and it may be got done on receipt of funds. Petitioner has not placed any tangible evidence on record either before this Court or before the Inquiry Officer that he was directed in writing or orally to undertake the repairs. Petitioner was not required to undertake repairs without the amount being sanctioned or there being any direction to carry out the repairs. Inquiry Officer has taken into consideration the statements of Rattan Singh, Param Dev, Munshi Ram and Ved Parkash. 5 Statements of petitioner, Nand Lal, Tej Singh, Kali Dass, Rattan Chand and Shambhu Ram were also taken into consideration by the Inquiry Officer while returning the findings that the petitioner has falsely claimed a sum of Rs. ` 2,541.55 from the State. Inquiry Officer has also conclusively held that the petitioner had tried to influence the functionaries of the State politically by getting the letter written from local Member of Legislative Assembly, i.e. Sh. Damodar Dass to Revenue Minister, Sh. Jagdev Chand. 6. A bare perusal of inquiry report makes it abundantly clear that Sh. Rattan Singh, the-then Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), in his statement, stated that he did not remember to have given verbal or written orders to the petitioner. Sh. S.K. Justa, the-then Additional Deputy Commissioner, in his statement, testified that he had not given any written orders for the completion of incomplete work. Rather the petitioner has admitted in his statement that there were no orders to spend money from his own pocket. He has also admitted that in Roznamcha Fard, there was no report about spending money from his own pocket. He had got the letter issued from local Member of Legislative Assembly, i.e. Sh. Damodar Dass to the Revenue Minister, Sh. Jagdev Chand. The contents of para 6 of the letter have 6 also been reproduced verbatim in the inquiry report. It is not believable that the local Member of Legislative Assembly will write to the Minister to release the money without being apprised of the facts. Petitioner was a public servant and it was not expected from him to use political influence on the functionaries of the State to pay a sum of ` 2,541.55 to him. The inquiry has been held against the petitioner strictly in accordance with law. Petitioner has not placed any material on record to establish that he has objected to the Disciplinary Authority that the inquiry was not being conducted in accordance with law. The Disciplinary Authority, i.e. Deputy Commissioner has imposed the penalty of withholding three increments with cumulative effect on 4.6.1997. The Divisional Commissioner, on an appeal filed by the petitioner, has reduced the penalty from withholding of three increments with cumulative effect to three increments without cumulative effect. He has passed a detailed and reasoned order on 5.3.1999. The revision preferred by the petitioner before the Financial Commissioner has been rejected by him on 14.12.1999. In review, the penalty imposed upon the petitioner has been diluted from withholding of three increments without cumulative effect to stoppage of one increment without 7 cumulative effect. The imposition of penalty of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect as ordered on 9.5.2001 is neither disproportionate nor harsh. The imposition of penalty imposed upon the petitioner, commensurates with the alleged misconduct. Charges levelled against the petitioner have been duly proved in a regularly conducted inquiry. Petitioner has failed to point out any infraction of the provisions of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 while holding the inquiry. 7. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 3.3. 2011 *awasthi*