Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 751 (HP)

Bhim Dutt v. State of HP

2014-06-17

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2014
JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, ACJ (Oral) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.05.2011, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP (T) No.9696/2008, titled Bhim Dutt versus State of H.P. and others, whereby the writ petition came to be dismissed, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal, hereinafter referred to as “the impugned judgment” for short. 2. It appears that a departmental inquiry was drawn against the petitioner/appellant, which was taken to its logical end by imposing penalty of withholding of two increments. 3. The petitioner/appellant challenged the order of imposition of penalty before the appellate authority-respondent No.2 herein, who set aside the order on the ground that neither the copy of inquiry report was supplied to the petitioner before passing the order of penalty nor he was afforded any opportunity to make representation against the findings of Inquiry Officer and the case was remanded. 4. Respondent No. 3 supplied the copy of inquiry report to the petitioner and also gave him opportunity to make representation. However, respondent No. 3 passed the order dated 2.12.1997 in a mechanical manner, without discussing and thrashing the representation made the same order of stoppage of two increments constraining the petitioner/appellant to file appeal before the appellate authority-respondent No. 2 herein which met with dismissal. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the appellate authority, the petitioner/appellant filed appeal before the Financial Commissioner which too was dismissed vide order dated 5.9.1998. 6. The petitioner/appellant preferred Civil Writ Petition challenging the order of his punishment, the orders of dismissal of his appeals and also challenged the communication regarding recovery of a sum of Rs.21838/- from his salary, in monthly installment of Rs.1000/- which was also dismissed vide impugned judgment. 7. We have gone through the record, impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. 8. It appears that the competent authority as well as the appellate authority have passed the orders mechanically without thrashing and marshalling out the facts and averments contained in the representation filed by the petitioner/appellant. At this stage, the learned counsel for the parties stated at the Bar that respondent No. 3 be directed to examine and thrash the representation, after hearing the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders. 9. In the given circumstances of this case, the LPA is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside. At this stage, the learned counsel for the parties stated at the Bar that respondent No. 3 be directed to examine and thrash the representation, after hearing the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders. 9. In the given circumstances of this case, the LPA is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside. Consequently, the writ petition is granted with the direction to the competent authority to hear the petitioner afresh, in the light of the averments contained in the representation filed by the petitioner, and pass speaking orders, within two weeks from today. 10. Accordingly, the LPA is disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any. Dasti copy.