SHISHI RAM Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 7.10.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP (T) No. 8678/2008.

(2.) Mr. Jeevesh Sharma has vehemently argued that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is not sustainable. He then contended that the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority was beyond the scope of charge-sheet. He also contended that the Inquiry Officer has violated rules 14 (11), 14 (14) and 14 (18) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. He further contended that the instructions dated 3.2.2000 were not brought to the notice of his client nor the same have been proved in accordance with law. He lastly contended that the Inquiry Officer cross-examined the Presenting Officer and directed him to file rejoinder to the written brief filed on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has supported the judgment dated 7.10.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge.

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