(1.) ACCORDING to learned counsel for the petitioner, matter in issue is squarely covered by the decision rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 3139 of 2011, titled as Ram Krishan versus State of H.P. and others, decided on 20.7.2011, copy of which is taken on record.
(2.) IT is not in dispute that petitioner was promoted as Inspector in terms of order dated 31.10.1986 (Annexure A -1). This of course was subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. Since petitioner did not comply with the same, show cause notice (Annexure A -2) dated 4.11.1992 was issued to him. Petitioner replied to the same but the explanation did not find favour with the authorities and as such in terms of order dated 30.11.1992 (Annexure A -4) petitioner was reverted to the post of Sub Inspector, which was challenged by the petitioner before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and his O.A. was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide his representation. In that regard order dated 16.12.1992, passed by the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal reads as under: The present application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 has been filed without exhausting the alternative remedy of appeal/representation to the Secretary (Food and Supplies). In the peculiar circumstances of the case we direct that the present application itself be treated as representation/appeal to the Secretary (Food and Supplies) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh who will consider the case of the applicant on merit and decide the same in accordance with law within a period 3 of three months with liberty reserved to the applicant to approach the Tribunal again on the same cause of action if aggrieved. The operation of the impugned order dated November 30, 1992, annexure -A1 is stayed in the meanwhile. 'Dasti copy '.
(3.) UNDISPUTEDLY vide another order dated 15.3.1993 (Annexure A -8) petitioner was promoted as Inspector in his own right.