JUDGMNET Sanjay Karol, Judge In terms of the present petition, Smt. Kala Devi has assailed the order dated 7.4.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by the erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal, in Original Application No.384 of 1989 (Annexure P-2), titled as Ram Dass versus H.R.T.C. and another, whereby Original Application filed by her husband, Shri Ram Dass, stands dismissed, on the ground that the relief claimed for was personal to him and also the order dated 31.8.1998 (Annexure PA) issued by the Divisional Manager, Himachal Road Transport Corporation (for short HRTC), Division Mandi, whereby petitioner’s husband was removed from service as a driver, was not assailed. 2. We are of the considered view that not only the impugned order needs to be set aside but the Original Application itself needs to be partly allowed. 3. Shri Ram Dass was engaged as a driver by the HRTC (Management) on 14.12.1994. His services were regularized with effect from 22.1.1995. During the service period certain other disciplinary proceedings were initiated and penalties imposed. With regard to certain other acts of misconduct, Shri Ram Dass was issued chargesheet on 19.9.1997, 20.8.1997 and 25.10.1997. Significantly, without waiting for the outcome of these proceedings, on 11.12.1997, the management issued him a Show cause Notice proposing to impose the penalty of removal from service. Shri Ram Dass responded to the same, but however, without the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, in terms of order dated 31.8.1998, he was removed from service, by invoking the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, taking the organization to be covered under the provisions of H.P. Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1972. 4. Shri Ram Dass preferred an appeal before the competent authority, which however did not find favour and was summarily rejected. 5. Aggrieved thereof, Shri Ram Dass filed Original application, under the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, before the erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal, inter alia, praying for the following reliefs: “i) The respondents be directed to re-appoint the applicant at the same place and in the same as on 31.8.1998. ii) That respondents be directed to give all the benefits to the applicant since 31-8-1998, which has accrued to him due to illegal removal of service. iii) The respondents be directed to produce the record of the applicant for the perusal of the Hon’ble Tribunal. ii) That respondents be directed to give all the benefits to the applicant since 31-8-1998, which has accrued to him due to illegal removal of service. iii) The respondents be directed to produce the record of the applicant for the perusal of the Hon’ble Tribunal. iv) The any other relief, warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case as may be deemed proper and acquitable by the Hon’ble Tribunal be granted by.” 6. Before this petition could be adjudicated, Shri Ram Dass expired and his legal heir, i.e. the present petitioner was brought on record. 7. In our considered view, while passing the impugned order, the Tribunal, erred in coming to the conclusion that the relief claimed for was purely personal to Shri Ram Dass. In law, had the petition been allowed, the legal heir of the deceased employee was entitled to receive the service/retiral benefits. We also find that there is a specific reference of the order dated 31.8.1998 (Annexure PA) in the OA, wherein it is averred as under:- “………..Therefore the order contained in Annexure P.A. is liable to be set- aside.” Hence, we set aside the impugned order dated 7.4.2008. 8. The erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal established under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, has now been wound up and as such this petition has to be adjudicated on merits by this Court. 9. There is no dispute that the provisions of H.P. Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1972 are applicable to HRTC. But then, in a case of a regular employee, against whom disciplinary action has already been initiated, there cannot be removal under the guise of retrenchment. 10. In the instant case, we find that the management has not made out a case for departure from the rule of ‘last come first go’. There are no justifiable reasons or grounds to invoke the provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. A regular employee, against whom disciplinary proceedings were in fact initiated by issuing show-cause notice could not have been removed summarily, but only after conclusion of the same. In fact the management itself had initially proceeded in that direction but mid-way decided to change the course and resort to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. A regular employee, against whom disciplinary proceedings were in fact initiated by issuing show-cause notice could not have been removed summarily, but only after conclusion of the same. In fact the management itself had initially proceeded in that direction but mid-way decided to change the course and resort to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Significantly even though the management paid dues to the workman under the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act, but actually “removed” him from service on the ground of his alleged mis-conduct in relation to which show cause notice stood issued. This order of removal is absolutely stigmatic and the action smacks of illegality, arbitrariness and legal malafides. In this view of the matter, Annexure PA dated 31.8.1998 needs to be quashed. We order accordingly. 11. With the quashing of Annexure PA, Shri Ram Dass would be deemed to be in service till the date of his death and as such all service benefits are to be disbursed to the present petitioner. 12. Under these circumstances, we direct the respondents-HRTC to disburse the retiral benefits of late Shri Ram Dass to his wife, the present petitioner, within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment, failing which, then thereafter, petitioner shall be entitled to interest @9% p.a. thereupon, however, the same shall be personally recovered from the erring official(s). The writ petition is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.