IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T)No. 5840 of 2008. Date of decision: 23.8.2010 ________________________________________________________ Harish Kumar. …. Petitioners Versus State of H.P & anr. .... Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the petitioner: Mr.D.Dadwal, Advocate. For the respondents: Sh,Vikas Rathour, Dy.Advocate General. _____________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29th April, 1999 whereby the services of the petitioner have been ordered to be terminated. The allegation against the petitioner is that during the pendency of his first marriage with one Smt.Veena Devi, he got married to another lady namely Babita Devi and thus, committed an act amounting to mis-conduct rendering him liable to be punished with imposition of major penalty. 2 2. An inquiry was conducted into the matter and the inquiry report was submitted on 24.9.1997 and it was found that the charges levelled against the petitioner have been proved. The petitioner was supplied with a copy of the report and submitted a written representation dated 23.12.1997. On going through the order, it appears that after the petitioner had submitted his response to the inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority sought further clarification from the Inquiry Officer and the Inquiry Officer went on a fact finding mission and stated certain facts in his letter dated 12.10.1998. These facts were collected at the back of the petitioner and he was never associated with the collection of such information. The Disciplinary Authority has also relied upon some secret information given by the police. The impugned order dated 29.4.1999 has to be set aside only on the ground that the Disciplinary Authority could not rely upon the report of the Inquiry Officer which was given after collecting information behind the back of the petitioner. He also could not rely upon the secret inquiry report given by the CID. 3. The Disciplinary Authority has gravely erred in taking these two reports into consideration and, therefore, 3 the order dated 29th April, 1999 is set aside. However, since the inquiry is complete, the Disciplinary Authority shall after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner dispose of the same only on the basis of the material collected during the pendency of the inquiry proceedings and on the basis of inquiry report and shall not take into consideration any other material. 3. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. August 23, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ) (m) Judge