PREMU Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was appointed as T/Mate in the respondent/ department on 22.8.1985. The petitioner was conferred work- charged status vide Annexure R-1 on 6.3.1986. In Annexure R-2 he has given his date of birth as 28.4.1962. A complaint was received by the department from Shri Joginder Singh and Shri Rameshwar Dass that the actual date of birth of the petitioner was 1938. Thereafter departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the CCS (CCA) Rules for brevity). Assistant Engineer, Ramshahar was appointed as Inquiry Officer on 5.3.2001. He submitted the inquiry report to the disciplinary authority and on that basis, the petitioner was dismissed from service vide Annexure A-2 on 30.4.2001. He preferred an appeal before the Superintending Engineer. He allowed the same on 4.2.2003 and the order of dismissal was set aside. The petitioner was reinstated on 4.7.2003. Thereafter the decision was taken to initiate fresh inquiry as per office order dated 5.2.2004. The petitioner challenged this order before the erstwhile learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A. No.659 On 19th March 2004, a statement was made by the of 2004. learned Additional Advocate General that vide office order dated 17th March, 2004, letter issued on 5th February, 2004 was withdrawn. Copy of office order dated 17th March, 2004 is annexed as Annexure A-7. However, it is apparent that thereafter Rule 29 of the CCS (CCA) Rules was invoked to revise the order passed by the Superintending Engineer vide Annexure A-3 on 4.2.2003. The petitioner was directed to make himself available before the Principal Secretary (PW) on 3.5.2005 vide order dated 21st April, 2005.

(2.) MR. T.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the Rule 29 of the CCS (CCA) Rules could not be invoked after two years. He also contended that the date of birth of his client is 28.4.1962 and not 1938.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully.