Er. Rahul Sharma vs Hpsebl And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 532 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 4487 of 2020 Date of Decision: 8th January, 2021

.

           Er. Rahul Sharma                                                 .....Petitioner





                                             Versus
           HPSEBL and anr.                                            ......Respondents
           Coram

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.

For the petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dogra, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Lakshay Thakur, Advocate.

(Through Video Conferencing)

Sureshwar Thakur, Judge (oral).

The writ petitioner, in pursuance, to, Annexure RA-1,

wherein allegations are borne, vis-à-vis, his producing, a, forged

certificate, of, Technical Education, of, Monal University, Hapur, H.P.,

on anvil whereof, he obtained employment, under the respondents

concerned, was asked to face an inquiry, under Rule 14, of, CCS CCA

Rules, 1965. His suspension in pursuance thereof occurred on 3rd July,

2020. Since Rule 10(7), of, CCS CCA Rule, 1965, enjoins upon the

employer/disciplinary authority, to, within three months thereafter,

inasmuch as, on or before 3rd October, 2020, make review of the order

of suspension, inasmuch as, taking to revoke it, or to extend it, yet the

afore mandate becomes breached, by the disciplinary authority. The

learned counsel for the writ petitioner, contends that, hence the

respondents/disciplinary authority, be directed to, ipso facto, make an

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

order, of, revocation, of, the order of suspension, as became made on

3rd July, 2020.

.

2. Even though, Rule 10(7) of CCS CCA Rules 1965, does

hold contemplation(s) for the afore review, becoming made within a

period of 90 days, since the making, of, the order of suspension, and

also, though therein occurs, a, mandate, qua validity thereof, surviving

upto 90 days, excepting, upon, the afore order becoming reviewed or

becoming extended, by the employer/disciplinary authority concerned.

However, the afore statutory mandate, cannot become capitalized, by

the writ petitioner, for his seeking, a, mandamus, upon, the

respondents concerned, that upon breach of the afore statutory

provisions, hence becoming indulged into, by the employer/disciplinary

authority, his becoming entitled to forthwith seek revocation, of, the

impugned order of suspension. The reason for making the afore

conclusion becomes aroused from the disclosure(s) existing in the

reply, furnished, on affidavit, to the extant writ petition, by the

respondents concerned, (a) more especially, upon, apt reliance being

made, upon, Annexure RA-5(iii), wherein a mandate becomes cast,

upon, the delinquent/writ petitioner to make his appearance(s) before

the inquiry officer concerned, rather on the scheduled dates, as

becomes mentioned therein, (b) yet the petitioner failing/omitting to

do so. Moreover, also despite his headquarter(s), becoming fixed, and,

besides, his being, directed to, perform his duties thereat, rather his

without any leave, being asked for, nor being granted to him, his

willfully absenting from duties, and also, his not in terms of FR-53(2),

furnishing the requisite certificate, whereupon, all the afore derelictions

tantamount(s) to his mis-conducting himself, (c) hence even during the

.

period of his suspension, as made through, the impugned order, and

whereafter, the disciplinary authority concerned, subjected him to face

inquiry proceedings. Since, the making of Annexure RA-5(iii), which

became issued, on 19.09.2020, and wherefrom emanate(s) a vivid

depiction(s), qua his, within the period of longevity, of, the apposite

order, of, suspension, hence to be computed from 3rd July, 2020,

rather his making the afore mis-conduct(s), (d) thereupon(s), vis-à-vis,

the afore completest dereliction(s), besides his omission(s) to face

departmental proceedings, whereupon, dehors the valid longevity, of,

the apposite period of 90 days, expiring, and, hence within tenure(s),

whereof he became entitled to seek either review thereof or extension

thereof, besides he became entitled to seek ipso facto revocation

thereof, rather forbids him to espouse for the afore relief. Furthermore,

since the granting of subsistence allowance, to him, is subject to his

remaining in attendance at the station concerned or the headquarter

concerned, whereas his making abstentions therefrom, therefore, he

cannot became entitled to, seek, a, mandamus, upon, the respondent,

for, directing them to release, his subsistence allowance.

3. Consequently, the extant writ petition is dismissed, so

also pending application(s), if any. However, it is clarified that, if till

the conclusion(s) of the inquiry(ies), the petitioner makes his

appearance(s) before the inquiry officer concerned, thereupon, the

respondents concerned, may accord to him, pro rata subsistence

allowance. No costs.

.

                                        (Sureshwar Thakur)
                                               Judge





                                     (Chander Bhusan Barowalia)
     th
    8 January, 2021                          Judge
     (raman/CS)




                       r         to