PURAN CHAND Vs. H.P. TOURISM DEVELOPMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner vide office memorandum dated 9.1.1998. The Inquiry Officer was appointed. He submitted the report to the Disciplinary Authority. The Petitioner was supplied with a copy of the inquiry report on 1.7.1998. He filed a reply to the same on 15.7.1998. A memo was issued to the Petitioner on 3.8.1998 to explain his position. He filed a reply to the same. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect vide office order dated 19.2.1999.

(2.) Mr. Dilip K. Sharma has vehemently argued that the disciplinary proceedings were not conducted in accordance with law. He also argued that there is violation of the principle of natural justice. According to him, Sh. Ashok Chauhan has not been produced as witness. He lastly contended that the punishment imposed vide office order dated 19.2.1999 is harsh and excessive.

(3.) Mr. Naresh Kaul has supported the penalty imposed upon the Petitioner on 19.2.1999.