SURESH SANKHYAN Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DISCIPLINARY proceedings were initiated against the petitioner vide Annexure P -2 dated 19.5.2009. Petitioner filed reply to the same. Sh. Ajay Sharma, Director Ayurveda was appointed as Inquiry Officer vide office order dated 16.9.2009. The Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry. The copy of the inquiry report is Annexure P -5. The Inquiry Officer has exonerated the petitioner by categorically holding that all six charges levelled against the petitioner were not proved. He submitted the report to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority passed order Annexure P -6 on 29.7.2010 disagreeing with the inquiry report. According to order dated 29.7.2010, the Disciplinary Authority has proposed to impose major penalty upon the petitioner. The petitioner was permitted to make representation within a period of 15 days. The petitioner submitted detailed reply to order dated 29.7.2010 on 20.8.2010. He also submitted additional reply to order dated 29.7.2010, vide Annexure P -7 -B. The Disciplinary Authority vide Annexure P -8 dated 29.10.2010 has imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement from the Government service upon the petitioner with immediate effect. The writ petition was admitted on 7.9.2011. The State has not chosen to file reply till date.

(2.) MR . Ajay Mohan Goel has strenuously argued that his client has been exonerated by the Inquiry Officer of all the charges. He then argued that in case the Disciplinary Authority has to disagree with the inquiry report, he was required to record its tentative reasons and the same were required to be furnished to the petitioner to enable him to make representation against the same. He then argued that the Disciplinary Authority had already made up its mind to impose major penalty upon the petitioner vide order dated 29.7.2010 even without supplying the reasons to the petitioner of disagreement with the inquiry report. He further contended that the Disciplinary Authority has passed a mechanical order without due application of mind. He lastly argued that the order ought to have been speaking/detailed after taking into consideration the averments contained in reply to order dated 29.7.2010.

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