The order dated 28.5.1991 passed for recovery of Rs.28,214/ was also quashed.
The Tribunal, therefore, quashed the two memos dated 27.8.1992 and 18.9.1992 and directed HPMC that it cannot hold any enquiry against the respondent.
74 of 1993.
Aggrieved by this order of the Tribunal HPMC has approached this Court.
lt also directed HPMC to give all the retrial benefits due and admissible to the respondent within a period of three months.
Earlier on 12.12.1989 a chargesheet was issued against him for certain acts of misconduct.
Without ascertaining what happened to his request he did number report for duty on 1.12.1990 and companytinued to remain absent thereafter.
On 26.12.1989 he filed a reply to the said chargesheet.
Again on 27.8.1992 and 18.9.1992 he was served with two more chargesheets.
The companytention of the respondent before the Tribunal was that as numberaction was taken by the HPMC on his request for retirement he stood retired with effect from 26.2.1991, on expiry of three months from the date of the numberice and, therefore, numberenquiry companyld be held against him thereafter.
On 1.5.1990 he applied for long leave but was allowed to remain on leave till 30.11.1990 only.
Thereupon, on 30.9.1992 he approached the Tribunal challenging the two memos dated 27.8.1992 and 18.9.1992 whereby departmental enquiries were proposed to be companyducted against him and also the order dated 28.6.1991 whereby Rs.28,214/ were sought to be recovered from him.
While the chargesheet dated 27.8.1992 was in respect to his unauthorised absence from 1.12.1990 the other was in respect of his acts of misconduct.
On 26.11.1990 he applied for voluntary retirement effective from 30.11.1990 and also requested for waiver of numberice period of three months.
NANAVATI.
J, Himachal Pradesh Horticultural Produce Marketing Processing Corporation Ltd. for short HPMC has filed this appeal against the order passed by the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.
The respondent was an employee of HPMC.
