Sh. Mast Ram Sharma vs Chairman, Himachal Pradesh School Education Board and The Board of Directors

Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J.—Aggrieved by imposition of penalty of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect upon the petitioner vide impugned order, Annexure P-3, he has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition with the following prayers:-

i) That taking the cognizance of unreasonable delay of long 13 years in concluding the inquiry, flagrant violation of principles of natural justice and prescribed procedure and non communication of decision on appeal Annexure P-5 this Hon''ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned punishment order No. HB(1)Estt. GF-93(59/3/2006-11483-11496 dated 17-6-2006, Annexure P-3.

ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to release all consequential benefits at par with his juniors to the petitioner.

iii) That the Respondents may kindly be directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for confirmation as Sr. Assistant like his juniors Sh. Jagdev Singh Thakur and Sh. Bhagat Ram Thakur.

iv) That the Respondents may kindly be directed to consider the petitioner at least for ad hoc promotion to the next higher post as per provision of CCS(CCA) Rules as the employee can not be denied benefit of promotion for indefinite period if proceedings are unnecessarily delayed by the Department itself.

The petitioner was working as Senior Assistant in the respondent-Board and posted in its office at Shimla. He was transferred to its head office at Dharamshala vide office order No. Hi-Shi-Bo(I)Sthapna-S.Fa.-92/92-9655-9714, dated 9.10.1992. He allegedly failed to report compliance to the order so passed and allegedly avoided to join duties on one pretext or the other, hence, departmental proceedings were ordered to be initiated against him. The charge sheet, Annexure P-1 under Rule 14 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "the rules" for convenience sake) was served upon him. The charges framed against the petitioner read as follows:-

Article-1

That Shri Mast Ram Sharma, Sr. Assistant is working unauthorisedly in the Book Sale Depot Shimla w.e.f. 20-12-92 in violation of orders of the competent authority. Thus he has shown misconduct defying the orders of the competent authority.

Article-II

That Shri Mast Ram Sharma, Sr. Assistant has defied the orders of District Manager Shimla and the orders/directions of Board office in not handing over the charge to concerned official and has not shown his personal interest in handing over the charge since 12-10-1992 till date and by working according to his own will forgetting his responsibility towards service has violated the service rules.

Shri Prittam Singh, Joint Secretary was appointed as inquiry officer. He recorded the evidence, however, the inquiry report was submitted by Shri Y.K. Sharma, Assistant Secretary to the disciplinary authority. The perusal of inquiry report, Annexure P-2 reveals that the petitioner was exonerated of the charges framed against him. The disciplinary authority, i.e. the 1st respondent while disagreeing with the inquiry report has imposed the penalty of stoppage of one increment upon the petitioner, no doubt without cumulative effect, however, without recording tentative reasons for disagreement with the findings of the inquiry officer and also serving the petitioner with the copy of inquiry report and thereby affording him an opportunity to submit representation, if any, thereto within 15 days from the receipt thereof, as required under sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 of the rules ibid. There cannot be any dispute qua this aspect of the matter because the supply of copy of inquiry report to the charged officer alongwith tentative reasons qua disagreement, if any, recorded by the disciplinary authority with the inquiry report with a view to afford the charged officer an opportunity of being heard before taking any action on the basis of inquiry report is a mandatory requirement and the legal position is also well settled in this behalf. No doubt, the penalty imposed upon the petitioner is minor, however, without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Without doing so even a minor penalty also could not have been imposed upon him, that too, when he was exonerated by the inquiry officer. There is no need to decide other issues brought to this Court in the present writ petition and the impugned order can be quashed and set aside on account of the non-compliance of provisions contained under Rule 15(2) of the rules, ibid with a direction to the disciplinary authority to proceed in the matter from the stage of consideration of inquiry report in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 15 of the rules and take action in the matter after serving the petitioner with a copy of inquiry report alongwith tentative reasons qua his disagreement, if any, with the findings recorded by the inquiry officer and taking into consideration the representation, if any, the petitioner prefers against the reasons so tentatively recorded by such authority because the petitioner otherwise has been exonerated from the charges by the inquiry authority. With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be a direction to the 1st respondent to take appropriate action in the matter within two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner, in the light of the observations made hereinabove. Pending application(s), if any, also shall stand disposed of. There is no order as to costs.