Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWPOA/12238/2008 on 29 December 2011
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CWP(T) No.: 12238 of 2008.
Decided on: 29.12.2010. __________________________________________________________
P.S. Kanwar.
… Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others.
… Respondents.
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
For the Petitioner : Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Vinod Thakur, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General.
Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral):
Petitioner was issued memorandum dated 22nd March, 2005 vide Annexure A-1 under Rule 16 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The disciplinary authority has imposed the penalty of reducing the pay of the petitioner by two stages from ` 10,300 to ` 9,750 in the time scale of ` 5800-9200 for a period of two years with effect from 1st May, 2005 with further a direction that he will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction.
1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. High Court of H.P. 2010:HHC:13050 ::: Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 12:09:11 :::CIS
- 2 -
2. Ms. Ranjana Parmar, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that though the petitioner had been issued memorandum under Rule 16 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, however, major penalty has been imposed upon her client. In other words, her submission is that the major penalty could only be imposed by following the procedure prescribed under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965.
3. Mr. Vinod Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General has strenuous argued that the penalty imposed upon the petitioner is minor. I have gone through order dated 7th April, 2005 (Annexure A-2). The penalty imposed upon the petitioner is major and will be covered under Rule 11(v) and not under Rule 11(iii)(a), as argued by Mr. Vinod Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General. The major penalty could be imposed upon the petitioner by following the detailed procedure prescribed under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965.
4. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-2, dated 7th April, 2005 is quashed and set aside. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.
(Rajiv Sharma),
Judge. December 29, 2010. (sck). High Court of H.P. 2010:HHC:13050 ::: Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 12:09:11 :::CIS