AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Justice Sanjay Karol, J.—Petitioner has filed the instant petition, inter alia, praying for
the following reliefs:- 1. That order annexure P-9 dated 25.03.1997, with holding 1/4 basic pension of the petitioner for three years may be quashed and set aside.
That order dated 25.03.2011 annexure P-17 may be quashed and set aside.
The respondent be directed to revoke the suspension order of the applicant and reinstate the petitioner from retrospected dated with all consequential financial benefits including payment of commutation of pension not paid to him.
The respondents may be directed to order re-fixation of the pay of the petitioner and to issue revised PPO.
The respondent may be directed to make a payment of Rs. 5627/- and Rs. 21129/- recovered on account of PLA to the petitioner, wrongly recovered from him.
The respondent may be directed not to effect any recovery from the pension of the petitioner.
The respondent be directed to withdraw entire disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner vide memorandum dated 18.02.1993 Annexure P-5 and consequential enquiry report Annexure P-8.
That Annexure P-11 order dated 05.02.1999 rejecting the appeal earlier may also be quashed.
That amount of recoveries made vide Annexures P-12 and P-13, while quashing these Annexures, may be paid to the petitioner and recovery illegally made for him.
The respondent may be directed to pay 12% interest on illegally with held gratuity of the petitioner.
On the asking of the petitioner, vide judgment dated 22.11.2010 passed by this Court in CWP (T) No. 5768 of 2008, titled as Bhola Singh versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and others, this Court had issued the following directions:-
The petitioner approached this Court with certain grievances regarding the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. In the nature of the order we propose to pass in this case, it is not necessary to go into the various factual details. It is seen that against Annexure A-10, which is regarding withholding of 1/4th basic pension of the petitioner for three years, the petitioner had preferred an appeal, which has been disposed of as per Annexure A-12. It is seen from Annexure A-12 that none of the grounds taken by the petitioner in Annexure A-11 has been adverted to and in any case they are not seen considered as per the order passed by the Appellate Authority. In that view of the matter, since the order does not satisfy the requirements of law of passing a speaking order in an appeal filed against a disciplinary action imposing punishment, we set aside Annexure A-12 and direct the Appellate Authority to pass a speaking order on Annexure A-11 appeal within a period of four months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner and in case the petitioner seeks an opportunity of hearing, the same shall also be granted.
Pursuant to the directions of this Court, impugned order dated 25.3.2011 (Annexure P-17) has now been passed by the Board. It is seen that directions issued by this Court have not been complied with in letter and spirit inasmuch as petitioner has not been heard before passing of the impugned order. Further, it is seen that contentions raised by the petitioner in the appeal (Annexure P-10) have also not been dealt with or adverted to by the authority. As such, as prayed for, on this short ground alone, order dated 25.3.2011 (Annexure P-17) is quashed with further directions to the respondents to decide the appeal afresh by not only associating the petitioner and affording him opportunity of hearing but also passing a speaking order clearly dealing with the contentions raised by him in the appeal. Needful be positively done within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.
Copy dasti.