JUDGMENT : 1. CMPT No.906 of 2022 For the reasons stated therein, this application filed for early hearing of the petition is allowed and disposed of. CWPOA No.3061 of 2019 With the consent of the parties, taken up for consideration today itself. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- “A) Writ of certiorari may kindly be issued against the respondents thereby quashing and setting aside order No. Per (SAS1) B (14))13/2010 of dated 17.9.2011 Annexure P5 and Inquiry Report dated 5.7.2011 Annexure P4 submitted by Sh. Hardev Singh Inquiry Officer cum Joint Secretary (Health) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh vide memo No. Per (SAS1) B (14)1310 of dated 19.7.2011 Annexure P3 issued by the Additional Secretary (SA) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh. B) the cost of the petition may also be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.” 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition are as under:- The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk on 19.06.2003 in Secretariat Administration Service Pool of the Himachal Pradesh Secretariat. While serving as such, vide Annexure P1, Memorandum dated 21.02.2011, was issued to the petitioner, intimating him that the Disciplinary Authority intended to hold an inquiry against the petitioner under Rule 14 of Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) (hereinafter to be referred as ‘CCS (CCA) Rules’), 1965. The substance of imputation of misconduct, in respect whereof the inquiry was proposed, were set out in the enclosed statement of Article of Charges and the petitioner was directed to submit his response thereto by way of written statement in defence within ten days. It is not mentioned in the petition as to whether the petitioner submitted any response thereto. In terms of the averments made in the petition and annexures appended therewith, an Inquiry Officer was thereafter appointed by the Disciplinary Authority to hold an inquiry against the petitioner and a perusal of the Inquiry Report demonstrates that in the course of inquiry, when the charges were read over to the petitioner, he admitted the charges levelled against him vide Memorandum dated 21.02.2011 (Annexure P1). It is also mentioned in the Inquiry Report that the charged official also gave in writing on 18.06.2011 that he was admitting the charges levelled against him. It is also mentioned in the Inquiry Report that the charged official also gave in writing on 18.06.2011 that he was admitting the charges levelled against him. Thereafter, the penalty of removal from service was imposed upon the petitioner in terms of order dated 17.09.2011 (Annexure P5), which has led to the filing of the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law, as the petitioner was not guilty of the charges levelled against him and further, neither the inquiry was held in a proper manner nor he was associated or heard in the course of the inquiry. 4. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that record speaks for itself that not only the inquiry held against the petitioner was strictly in terms of the provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules, but in the course of the inquiry, the petitioner admitted the charges levelled against him and therefore, in this background the penalty imposed upon the petitioner cannot be allowed to be challenged by him. Learned Additional Advocate General also argued that otherwise also, the petition has been filed without availing the right of appeal, which otherwise was available to the petitioner under the provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended with the petition and the reply, this Court is of the considered view that present petition is without any merit. 6. Though, there are two Memorandums appended with the petition to the effect that the Disciplinary Authority intended to hold inquiry against the petitioner on account of misconduct, but this Court is referring only to Memorandum dated 21.02.2011 (Annexure P1), because the Inquiry Report was submitted with regard to the said Memorandum and penalty of removal has also been passed with regard to the article of charges, which were appended with the said Memorandum. 7. As this Court has already mentioned hereinabove, the petition is conspicuously silent as to whether Memorandum dated 21.02.2011 (Annexure P1) was responded to by the petitioner or not. 7. As this Court has already mentioned hereinabove, the petition is conspicuously silent as to whether Memorandum dated 21.02.2011 (Annexure P1) was responded to by the petitioner or not. Further, a perusal of the Inquiry Report (Annexure P4) demonstrates that it is mentioned therein in the course of hearing of the charges, the charged official, i.e. the petitioner admitted the charges levelled against him and he also made this admission in writing on 18.06.2011. Alongwith the reply filed by respondent/State as Annexure R1, statement of the petitioner dated 18.06.2011 is appended, in which it is stated that the charges levelled against him were read over to him and all the charges were true and admitted. Now, incidently, there is no rejoinder filed to the reply, rebutting what has been mentioned in the reply and also the documents that stand appended with the reply. Thus, this leads us to a situation, wherein in the course of the inquiry proceedings which were held against the petitioner, upon his admitting the charges levelled against him, the order of dismissal of service was passed against him by the Disciplinary Authority. 8. In this background, this Court cannot accept the contention of the petitioner, as has been raised by learned counsel, that the inquiry was not held as per law or procedure or further the petitioner was neither associated nor heard in the course of inquiry. In fact, these arguments are completely contrary to the record. 9. Accordingly, in view of the findings returned hereinabove, as this Court does not finds any merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.