29.7.2008 Present: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D. Dadhwal, Advocate for the respondents. CWP No.771/2000 This writ petition is directed against the judgment of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), whereby the original application of the petitioner was dismissed. Precisely the facts are that the petitioner was Incharge of Sale Depot at Tapri in District Kinnaur, wherein he was charge-sheeted on 10th April, 1986 and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the petitioner’s services were terminated as there were two charges found to be proved against him. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner initially approached the Appellate Authority and thereafter the learned Tribunal by a reasoned order rejected the original application of the petitioner on merit. Hence, this petition. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the authority has failed to furnish a copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner, therefore, the principles of natural justice were violated. It has been further alleged that Rule 15(2) of CCS (CCA) Rules were violated, which is as under:- “The disciplinary authority shall, if disagrees with the findings, of the inquiring authority on any article of charge, record its reasons, for such disagreement and record its own findings on such charge if the evidence record is sufficient for the purpose.” It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the inquiring authority recommended for a lenient view to be taken. Inspite of the same, the petitioner’s services have been terminated and, therefore, the disciplinary authority erred by not recording the reasons for disagreement. We have carefully perused the judgment and appreciated the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and find that there is no disagreement as far as the findings of the inquiring authority and the disciplinary authority is concerned. Therefore, the ground is not available to the petitioner on the basis of which the interference can be shown by this Court. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that one Shri Dev Raj was equally guilty, however, no action has been taken against him, whereas the Inquiry Officer has held that the petitioner and Dev Raj both are guilty of misappropriation of money of Rs.1116.19 paise. We are of the considered opinion that it is open for the authorities to take or not to take any action. However, on this ground the action taken against the petitioner cannot be interfered. We find that at the time of termination of the petitioner on 20th January, 1989, the law had not been developed to the extent that before imposing any major penalty against the incumbent, a copy of the inquiry report was to be furnished. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner admits that otherwise there is no such Rule prevailing in January, 1989 to furnish the copy of the inquiry report. In light of the above discussion, we do not find any reasonable ground to show interference in the judgment of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. ` ( Jagdish Bhalla ), C.J. ( Sanjay Karol ), J. July 29, 2008 (rana)