Point of Law: It is a duty of Inquiry Officer to scan entire evidence in order to arrive at a finding after judging case of all the parties, adhering to the principles of natural justice, otherwise, inquiry is vitiated and finding recorded is also not in accordance with law.

ORDER :

By way of present petition, petitioner has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:

“(i) That the impugned inquiry report dated 26.06.2018 contained in Annexure P-16, impugned punishment order dated 10.04.2019 contained in Annexure P-20 passed by respondent No.4 and office order dated 15.06.2020 contained in Annexure P-25 passed by respondent No.1 rejecting the appeal of the petitioner may kindly be quashed and set-aside being constitutionally void, arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, void ab-initio, non-est, ultra vires and against the principles of natural justice, by issuing a writ of Certiorari;

(ii) That the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be passed directing the respondents to treat the period of suspension from 22.01.2016 to 21.04.2016 as on duty and remaining consequential benefits be released to the petitioner alongwith interest @ 9% per annum;

(iii) That the writ in the nature of mandamus may also be passed directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the next higher post of Inspector/Cashier from the date persons junior to him have already been promoted as such and consequential benefits be released to the petitioner.

(iv) That the writ in the nature of mandamus may also be passed directing the respondent No.1 to initiate disciplinary action against the respondent Nos. , 6 and 7 who intentionally and willfully failed to comply with the provisions of Rule 14 (35) of the CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 and did not attend the inquiry proceedings despite notices/summons issued to them by the respondent No.5.”

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Booking Clerk on contract basis, under the Kith and Kin Policy of the respondent-Corporation on 25.5.1998. Subsequently vide order dated 25.5.1999, services of petitioner were regularized and since then he is working regularly with the respondent Corporation. Record reveals that on 21.1.2016, one Shri Narain Dass, Driver, in the office of HRTC Mandi leveled allegations against the petitioner that he made indecent remarks against respondent No.4 i.e. Divisional Manager, Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Divisional Office Mandi. Taking cognizance of aforesaid complaint made by Shri Narain Dass, respondent No.4, placed the petitioner under suspension vide order dated 22.1.2016 (Annexure P-1) and fixed his headquarters at HRTC Sarkaghat. On 1.2.2016, charge sheet was served upon the petitioner by respondent No.2. Petitioner submitted reply to the memo on 8.2.2016 (Annexure P-3) and thereafter on 27.10.2017 (Annexure P-5) submitted written statement of defence to Inquiry Officer. Inquiry Officer was requested to supply defence/additional documents, but such documents were not supplied to the petitioner and as such, he was compelled to approach erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of OA No. 1501 of 2019. By way of aforesaid Original Application, petitioner also laid challenge to his suspension order dated 22.1.2016.

3. In the aforesaid Original Application, petitioner filed MA No. 682 of 2018 levelling therein allegations against Inquiry Officer that despite there being request of petitioner, defence/ additional documents were not supplied to him. However, aforesaid prayer made by the petitioner came to be dismissed as being premature. Vide aforesaid order, learned Tribunal below also observed that as regards initiation of departmental proceedings in accordance with rule 14(35) of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter, ‘Rules’), applicant would be at liberty to press his prayer before Inquiry Officer as per rules/law.

4. Interestingly, in the case at hand, Defence Assistant of the petitioner vide communication dated 14.9.2017, Annexure P-6, though submitted list of five witnesses as detailed on back side of said communication but witness at Sr. Nos. 2 and 5 Neel Mani Sharma and Rajesh Kumar (p