JYOTI PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been directed the order dated 1.5.2001 passed by the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. (M) 461 of 1995.

(2.) THE brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was employed as Driver with respondent No. 1. His services were taken over by respondent No. 2 in the month of March, 1978. A charge -sheet was served upon the petitioner vide memo No. AIC -3 -44/80 -60 dated 1.4.1981 to the following effect : - That the said Sh. Jyoti Parkash while functioning as Mechanic, Grade -I in H.P. Agro -Industries Corporation Ltd., Agricultural Workshop, Bhangrotu alleged to have committed disobedience, misconduct, negligence in discharging of his duties. That he disobeyed and have shown non -compliance to the orders issued to him by the Divisional Manager/Work Supervisor, H.P. Agro -Industries Corporation Ltd., Bhangrotu on various occasions such as letter No. AIC -2 -15/80 -2048 dated 26.8.1980 letter No. AIC -16 -1/80 -2065 dated 28.6.1980, letter No. AIC.16 -1/80 -2151 dated 30.6.1980, Letter No. AIC -2 -13/80 -1985 -1089 dated 20.6.1980 and letter No. AIC -2 -13/80/2058 dated 27.6.1980. -

(3.) HE was again removed vide order dated 28.9.1987. He assailed his removal before the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of OA No. 87/1990. The order dated 28th September, 1987 was quashed by the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal vide order dated 27.2.1991. It appears from the pleadings that the petitioner could not make representation as per order dated 27th February, 1991. He filed a fresh original application No. 1009/1991 before the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The learned Tribunal vide order dated 2nd November, 1992 directed him to file a representation within a period of one month. He made a representation on 15.11.1992 and another representation was made by him on 22.11.1992 against the inquiry report. The Managing Director of respondent No.2 Corporation vide letter dated 18.3.1993 rejected the representation and proposed the penalty of removal from service. He was served with a show cause notice why the penalty of removal from service be not imposed upon him and period with effect from 10.11.1981 till the date of removal of service be not considered as on suspension. He submitted representation against the letter dated 18th March, 1993 on 6.4.1993. The Managing Director of respondent No. 2 -Corporation imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner vide order dated 7th September, 1993. He preferred an original application before the learned Tribunal bearing OA No. 1980/1993. The same was directed to be treated as a representation to the Board of Directors of respondent No. 2 -Corporation. The representation was directed to be decided within 6 months vide order dated 10th November, 1993. The representation was not decided by the Board of Directors and the learned Tribunal on 22.9.1994 directed that the representation be decided by the Secretary (Agriculture) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh within a period of 3 months. The representation made by the petitioner was rejected by the Agriculture Production Commissioner, Government of Himachal Pradesh on 20.4.1995. The petitioner assailed order dated 20.4.1995 by way of original application bearing No. OA(M) No. 461 of 1995. The original application was dismissed by the learned Tribunal by order dated 1.5.2001. It is in this backdrop that we have to decide the writ petition.