SUSHIL KUMAR DOGRA Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT Civil Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is pleaded that on dated 10.11.2006 OA No. (D) 471 of 2006 was filed before HP Administrative Tribunal against compulsory retirement order dated 4.9.2002. It is pleaded that in the year 2008 OA No. 471 of 2006 was transferred to Hon'ble High Court of HP when HP Administrative Tribunal was scrapped. It is further pleaded that on dated 5.8.2011 CWP(T) No. 14534 of 2008 was decided by Hon'ble High Court of HP and the same was allowed. It is further pleaded that order of penalty Annexure A14 and order of Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal of the petitioner Annexure A20 were quashed. It is further pleaded that Hon'ble High Court of HP in CWP(T) 14534 of 2008 further directed that punishing authority shall pass appropriate orders on the basis of inquiry report after affording the petitioner an opportunity to make representation against the finding of Inquiry Officer. It is further pleaded that thereafter Director of Agriculture -cum -Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 1.8.2012 rejected representation of the petitioner to reinstate him. It is further pleaded that impugned order No. 3 -187/67 -Ag.I - dated 1.8.2012 Annexure P4 passed by respondent No. 2 in the capacity of Disciplinary Authority be declared as null and void. It is further pleaded that petitioner be declared in continuous service w.e.f. 4.9.2002 till date of his retirement i.e.30.4.2007 with all consequential service benefits. It is further pleaded that respondents be directed to release the pay and allowances of the petitioner w.e.f. 4.9.2002 to 30.4.2007. It is further pleaded that retired benefit such as pension, DCRG and leave encashment be also released with all arrears along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Prayer for acceptance of civil writ petition sought.

(2.) PER contra reply filed on behalf of the respondents pleaded therein that petitioner was transferred from the office of Deputy Director of Agriculture Palampur to the Directorate of Agriculture Shimla on dated 25.9.1997. It is further pleaded that petitioner was relieved by Deputy Director of Agriculture Palampur on dated 19.11.1997 but he did not join in the office of Directorate of Agriculture Shimla. It is further pleaded that petitioner willfully remained absent and was placed under suspension. It is further pleaded that thereafter petitioner was reinstated on dated 10.5.1999 with direction to resume duty in the Directorate of Agriculture Shimla and suspension period was treated as leave of the kind due and penalty of censure was imposed against the petitioner. It is further pleaded that even thereafter petitioner did not report for duty in the Directorate of Agriculture HP Shimla and remained absent without intimation. It is further pleaded that thereafter registered letter was issued to the petitioner and petitioner was informed that disciplinary action would be initiated against him. It is further pleaded that notice was also issued to the petitioner and same was published in the Indian Express on dated 29.7.1999 but despite the above stated facts petitioner did not resume the duty and behave in irresponsible manner and violated rules and office procedure. It is further pleaded that petitioner remained absent from duty without intimation and did not submit any leave application. It is further pleaded that thereafter Disciplinary Authority passed compulsory retirement order. It is further pleaded that thereafter OA No. (D) 471 of 2006 was filed by the petitioner before HP Administrative Tribunal and after scraped of the HP Administrative Tribunal the petition was transferred to Hon'ble High Court of HP and the same was registered as CWP(T) 14534 of 2008. It is further pleaded that petitioner submitted a representation and was afforded two opportunities to represent his case but he did not turn up. It is further pleaded that thereafter representation of the petitioner to reinstate from the date of compulsory retirement was again rejected. It is further pleaded that petitioner is not entitled for any relief. It is further pleaded that order dated 1.8.2012 Annexure P4 was issued after careful consideration by the Disciplinary Authority. It is further pleaded that Annexure P4 is legal document and the same be upheld. It is further pleaded that writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same be dismissed.

(3.) FOLLOWING points arise for determination in the present writ petition: