SUBHASH CHAND DHIMAN Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Engineer in the year 1979. He remained posted as Assistant Engineer in the Sub Division No.II, Una of Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department with effect from May 1980 to June 1985. He was served with a memorandum, dated 1.1.1994 (Annexure A -1), proposing to take action against him under Rule 16 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. It was alleged in the memorandum that the petitioner has failed to exercise periodical check on muster rolls No.345 to 347. He filed the reply to the memorandum on 6.1.1994. Since no action was taken even after filing the reply by the petitioner to memorandum, he approached the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A. No.420 of 1994. The learned Tribunal directed, the Original Application to be treated as representation to the Secretary, Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department. He was directed to decide the matter within three months. The respondents were further directed to consider the case of the petitioner along with others for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer and to keep the proceedings in the sealed cover. In sequel to the directions of the learned Tribunal, the Commissioner -cum -Secretary, Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department passed order dated 26.10.1994, whereby he imposed the penalty of Stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect - on the petitioner. He preferred a detailed appeal to the Commissioner -cum -Secretary Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department against the order dated 26.10.1994. The same was rejected by him on 28.12.1994.

(2.) MR . Deepak Kaushal, Advocate has strenuously argued that there was inordinate delay in issuing the memorandum to the petitioner of the alleged incident which occurred in the year 1981. His further contention is that order dated 26.10.1994 is actuated without legal malafides and it has been issued to deprive the petitioner to be considered for the higher post. He further contended that the petitioner has filed an appeal, assailing order dated 26.10.1994. However, the same was rejected by the appellate authority without considering the grounds mentioned in the appeal on 28.12.1994. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has supported the decision vide Annexures A -4 and A -7.

(3.) THE petitioner was appointed in the year 1979. He remained posted as Assistant Engineer in Una, Sub Division -II with effect from May 1980 to June 1985. He was served with a memorandum, dated 1.1.1994 (Annexure A -1). He filed reply to the memorandum on 6.1.1994. Since no decision was being taken even after filing the reply by the petitioner, he approached the learned Tribunal as noticed above. The decision was taken by the Commissioner -cum -Secretary, Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department in the shape of order dated 26.10.1994.