Sher Singh Dogra vs State Of H.P. & Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 28 HP

                              1




      IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT
                       SHIMLA
                               CWP No. 5086 of 2022




                                                            .

                                           Decided on : 2.1.2023





    Sher Singh Dogra

                                                    ...Petitioner
                                  Versus





    State of H.P. & another
                  r                                 ...Respondents

    Coram

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge
    Whether approved for reporting? no
    ________________________________________________



    For the petitioner :          Mr.   Govind         Raj         Gour,
                                  Advocate.




    For the respondent(s) : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate
                            General   with   Mr.   Y.P.S.





                            Dhaulta, Additional Advocate
                            General and Mr. J.S. Guleria,





                            Deputy Advocate General, for
                            the respondents­State.

    Per Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (oral):

The instant petition has been filed for the

grant of following reliefs:

" (i) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, restraining the respondents from conducting re­inquiry against thepetitioner being time

.

barred and prohibitory under Rule 9 of CCS 9Pension) Rules, 1972, as the petitioner stands retired from government service on 31.3.2016. The respondent No.

2 is a executive and administrative office of IAS Rank, he is supposed to know the provisions of Rule 15 of CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965. It is not the Court to tell him the provisions of Rules, ibid.

(ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to allow 3 increments in favour of thepetitioner in the light of the judgment dated 11.7.2018, passed by the

learned Tribunal (Annexure P­5) alongwith arrears

with interest @ 12% per annum from due date till its realization, by issuing writ of mandamus."

2. The petitioner was admittedly charge­sheeted

in the year 2004, while he was in service. Now that he

stands retired, we are of the considered view that the

inquiry, as pending against him, needs to be taken to its

logical end, expeditiously.

3. Accordingly, we dispose of the petition by

directing the respondents to conclude the inquiry within

two months from today. The pending application(s), if

any, are also disposed of.

.

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge

(Virender Singh) Judge

2.1.2023 Kalpana