MOHINDER PAL GROVER Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 7.1.2011 passed in CWP (T) No. 6155 of 2008, (Mohinder Singh Vs. State of H.P. and others) , whereby learned Single Judge of this Court has dismissed the writ petition, approving the order dated 31st Aug., 1999 (Annexure A-15), imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement of the writ petitioner/appellant, who had challenged the order dated 29th July, 1999 (Annexure A- 13), whereby, the Deputy Commissioner (Disciplinary Authority) has endorsed the report of the Departmental Inquiry, directing the appellant to make representation within ten days on the findings of the Inquiry Officer.

(2.) For adjudicating the present appeal, it is necessary to give factual background of the case, emerging from the records. The appellant was initially appointed as Clerk on 28.12.1979 and while working as Ahlmad in the office of Sub Divisional Officer (C), Shimla (U), he was also assigned the work of District Red Cross Society. Appellant was transferred from office of the Sub Divisional Officer (C), Shimla to Misc. Branch, District Head Quarter on 4.2.1997 and he was directed to handover the charge of Red Cross Society to P.A. of the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla. While giving the charge on 17.2.1997, the appellant did not handover the cash book and other relevant account papers. In the meantime the appellant was promoted on 1.5.1998 as Senior Assistant and was posted as Training Assistant at District Headquarter, but the appellant did not join the said post and remained absent from duty without any intimation despite repeated notices, reminders and show cause notice. The appellant remained absent from 1.7.1998 to 13.9.1998 (78 days), however, appellant produced medical certificate only for 65 days i.e. from 9.7.1998 to 11.9.1998, as such charge sheet dated 28.9.1998 containing four charges was served upon the appellant. The charges framed against the appellant read as below:-

(3.) It appears that on 25.9.1998, the appellant was transferred to Sub Tehsil Kupvi and was relieved from duties on 28.9.1998. In reference to said order, the appellant had not joined his duties at Kupvi and had also not chosen to give reply to the charge sheet, therefore, for conducting the disciplinary enquiry, Sh. J.R. Katwal, Additional District Magistrate (P), Shimla was appointed as Enquiry Officer on 4.12.1998, who issued notice to the appellant, on whose notice, the appellant neither filed any reply nor was present in person, therefore, the enquiry was adjourned for 27.1.1999. The appellant was served through registered post as well as Process Serving agency, which were duly served on the appellant, however, on 27.1.1999, the appellant submitted a representation to the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla with a copy of the same to Enquiry Officer, seeking permission to engage Sh. S.R. Sharma, retired Deputy Secretary HPPSC as defence assistant. Such representation of the appellant was dealt with on 27.1.1999 itself in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Shimla and the request of the appellant was turned down on the ground that Sh. S.R. Sharma being a legal practitioner, as such, as per provisions of Classification, Control and Appeal (Central Civil Service) Rules, 1965 (in short called CCS (CCA) Rules, as application in State of Himachal Pradesh could not have been appointed as defence assistant. The intimation to that effect was conveyed to the appellant vide letter dated 1.2.1999. It appears that during the course of disciplinary proceedings corrigendum charge sheet dated 9.4.1999 issued to the appellant, reads as under:-