Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge

i The petitioner by way of present petition has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:-

“1. That the present writ petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned orders Annexure P-5 dated 10.07.1997 and P-6 dated 13.10.97 may kindly be set aside and quashed. Any other relief which this Hon’ble deems just and proper.

2. That the petitioner may kindly be reinstated with all consequential benefits i.e. seniority, promotion, back wages and all other consequential bene

2. The facts which emerge from the pleadings are that the petitioner was appointed as Inspector with the respondents-Corporation vide ofÏce order dated 26.12.1996 (Annexure P-1), and joined his duties on 17.01.1997. Before appointment of the petitioner as HInspector with the respondents-corporation, he was running the business of transport and after his appointment, he wrote an application dated 11.03.1997 (Annexure P-2) to the financer i.e. Tata Finance Limited Chandigtarh to transfer his bus permit as well as loan account in the name of his family members. However, the Finance Company had written to the petitioner on 05.04.1997 (Annexure P-3) that as per the Hire Purchase Agreement entered by the petitioner with the company, he his not supposed to sale the vehicles and loan amount could not be transferred till the finance amount interest is remitted to them. Further the petitioner was informed that the loan amount was given on the basis of the bus permits granted to him by Himachal Pradesh Government and thus the permits cannot be transferred till the dues towards the company is liquidated, otherwise it would be treated as breach of contract from the petitioner’s side.

3. A memorandum was issued to the petitioner on 05.07.1997 (Annexure P-4) by the respondents-Corporation, that on his appointment with the respondents-Corporation, he was supposed to submit a return regarding movable property inherited by him on lease or mortgage either on his own name or in the name of any meHmber of his family or in the name of his relatives and further being corporation employee, except with the previous sanction, he was not supposed to be engaged directly or indirectly in any trade or business. It has been foutnd that the petitioner is running a transport business and is operating two buses bearing registration Nos. HP-17-8786 and HP-17-4786, which are registered in his own name in violation of the provisions of the Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, (for short the ‘CCS h(Conduct), Rules’), as well as the relevant provision of the fundamental Rules and thus a show cause notice was issued as to why suitable action be not taken against him for violation of the above service Rules/conditions and thereby concealing the facts about running a transport business in his name during his employment in the corporation without proper permission.

4. The petitioner on receipt of the aforementioned show cause notice, submitted his reply on 29.07.1997 (Annexure P-4A) and pleaded that the show cause notice is not based on actual and true facts and hence the contents are not admitted. The petitioner had purchased two buses bearing registration Nos. HP-17-4586 and HP-17-8786 in the year 1995 and 1996, respectivelHy when he was unemployed. These buses were financed by Tata Finance Limited, Chandigarh and after his selection as Inspector with the respondent-Corporation in the month of January, 1997, he had immediately apprtoached the financier to transfer the ownership of the buses, but they had refused to do so till the repayment of entire loan amount with interest etc., so these vehicles could not be transferred in the name of his family members. He had further mentioned that he has happointed his father and brothers as attorneys to look after and manage the affairs of these buses jointly and severely and for this purpose, even General Power of Attorney has been executed on 04.03.1997. After joining the service, the petitioner did not purchase any movable and immo