BHADO DEVI Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Kali Ram (now deceased) (hereinafter referred to as 'original Petitioner ' for convenience sake) was appointed as Patwari on 16.7.1971. He died on 19.3.2002. An application bearing M.A. No. 1766/2002 was preferred before the learned erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal for bringing on record his legal representatives. The same was allowed by the learned Tribunal on 30.3.2006.

(2.) DISCIPLINARY proceedings were initiated against him, under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, vide memo dated 5.6.1996. The Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Paonta Sahib was appointed as Inquiry Officer on 22.9.1997. He submitted the report to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of dismissal upon the original Petitioner on 28.4.1999. Original Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner. He dismissed the same on 6.10.1999.

(3.) MR . P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that the penalty imposed upon the original Petitioner is neither disproportionate nor harsh. According to him, as far as Kailash Chand is concerned, penalty of stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect, was imposed upon him by the Disciplinary Authority and the order of the removal was passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner. However, the learned erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal set aside the order of Divisional Commissioner and restored the order of Disciplinary Authority. He also argued that Mam Raj has superannuated and the case was taken up with the State Government to proceed against him, under Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 .