Himachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On: 07Th March vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 7 March, 2026
2026:HHC:6248
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
CWPOA No.1255 of 2019
.
Decided on: 07th March, 2026
___________________________________________________________________
Gorkhu Ram ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others ...Respondents
of
_____________________________________________________________________
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge
rt Whether approved for reporting? 1 Yes For the petitioner: Mr. R.K. Gautam, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jai Ram Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General.
Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) By way of present petition, the petitioner who was working as a Beldar with the respondents on regular basis has challenged the order dated 20.06.2008 (Annexure P-4), whereby respondent No.4 had imposed penalty of dismissal from the Government service upon him.
2. The petitioner has pleaded in the petition that he 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:32:47 :::CIS 2was appointed as Beldar on daily wage basis with the respondent-Department in the year 1987 and thereafter his .
services were regularized in the year 1999. At the time of regularizing his services, he had mentioned his date of birth as 14.05.1955 (Annexure P-1).
3. It has been averred in the petition that one Sh.
of Jaram Singh, who was not on good terms with the petitioner, filed a false complaint against him regarding his date of birth rt before the respondent-Department. The respondent-
Department, while taking cognizance of the said complaint, had conducted an inquiry against the petitioner and after receipt of the inquiry report, a show cause notice dated 16.05.2008 (Annexure P-3) was issued to him, stating that upon consideration of the inquiry report, respondent No.4 agreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and found that the articles of charges were proved, and thus the petitioner was not a fit person to be retained in service, and the respondent-
Department proposed to impose penalty of dismissal from ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:32:47 :::CIS 3 service on him.
4. The petitioner filed reply to the show cause notice .
vide Annexure P-2, stating therein that the petitioner is younger to his elder brother Sh. Amar Singh, who has died. His brother Kishan Chand is younger to him by two years, and brother Karam Chand, sister Ratto Devi are younger to him by about 4 of and 6 years. In addition, he has one sister Hanso Devi and brother Rajan Kumar who are younger to him by 8 to 10 years.
rt As per the desire of the Inquiry Officer, he has produced the School Leaving Certificate of his brother Rajan Kumar in support of his claim.
5. After receipt of reply to the show cause notice submitted by the petitioner, respondent No.4 passed an office order on 20.06.2008 (Annexure P-4) imposing penalty of dismissal on the petitioner from service.
6. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved by the said order of dismissal passed by respondent No.4, preferred a petition before this Court bearing No. CWP(T) No.1708 of 2008, titled ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:32:47 :::CIS 4 Gorkhu Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, which was disposed of on 16.03.2010 (Annexure P-5) with a direction .
that since the petitioner has not filed appeal against the order of dismissal, he is permitted to file an appeal before the appropriate authority to assail the order dated 20.06.2008. The petitioner, in compliance with the directions passed by this of Court, preferred an appeal before respondent No.3, who vide order dated 24.03.2011, dismissed the same.
rt
7. The petitioner has averred in the writ petition that he had been acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Dalhousie, District Chamba, H.P., in Criminal Case No. 13-11 of 2004, titled State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Gorkhu Ram and others, on 31.10.2011, and since the petitioner had been acquitted, the impugned order passed by the respondents dismissing him from service vide order dated 20.06.2008 (Annexure P-4) and the order dated 24.03.2011 (Annexure P-7) dismissing his appeal, cannot be sustained.
8. It has been pleaded that the appellate authority has ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:32:47 :::CIS 5 merely confirmed the order dated 20.06.2008 passed by respondent No.4. The petitioner had served with the .
respondents for more than 20 years. It has further been pleaded that the petitioner had submitted the certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat and the same was valid in the eyes of law however, neither respondent No.3 nor respondent No.4 of considered the said certificate, and thus wrongly imposed the penalty of dismissal from service upon him.
rt
9. The respondents-State filed reply to the petition and supported the orders passed by the authorities. It has been submitted that the petitioner was regularized with effect from 09.06.1999. At the time of regularization of his services, he had submitted the date of birth certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat mentioning his date of birth as 14.05.1955. However, in a complaint dated 08.10.2000 received from Jaram Singh, it was alleged that the original date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 1945, but he tampered with the said entry and converted it to 14.05.1955.
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:32:47 :::CIS 610. It has further been averred in the reply that the Assistant Engineer of the respondent-Department lodged a .
police complaint and an FIR No.36/02 dated 26.11.2002 under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the IPC was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Khairi. It has been submitted that in the inquiry, it came on record that the petitioner is six years of elder to his sister Ratto Devi, whose date of birth is 1955. If the younger sister of the petitioner was born in the year 1955, then rt the petitioner cannot claim that he himself was born on 14.05.1955. Therefore, the penalty of dismissal from service was rightly said to be imposed upon the petitioner. It has also been averred that an inquiry under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was held in which charges were framed, and thereafter the penalty of dismissal from service was imposed upon the petitioner.
11. The petitioner has not filed any rejoinder to reply filed by the respondents.
12. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:32:47 :::CIS 7 as well as the learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents-State and also perused the record carefully.
.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the fact that his younger sister was born in the year 1955. Even as per his reply to the show cause notice, reference of her name has been mentioned. Learned counsel has vehemently argued of that once the petitioner has been acquitted of the charges by the criminal Court, the order passed by the disciplinary rt authority dismissing him from service, cannot be sustained.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed heavy reliance upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others vs. T. Srinivas, (2004) 7 SCC 442 and G.M. Tank vs. State of Gujarat and others, (2006) 5 SCC 446, to contend that once the petitioner had been acquitted in a criminal trial, the departmental inquiry based on the same set of facts, charges, evidence and witnesses cannot be sustained.
15. The first judgment cited by the learned counsel for ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:32:47 :::CIS 8 the petitioner does not advance the case of the petitioner, for the reason that in the said judgment, it has been observed that .
departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously.
16. The second judgment cited by the learned counsel observes that where a person is honourably acquitted by a of criminal Court, findings recorded in departmental proceedings contrary to such acquittal may be held to be unjust, unfair and rt oppressive.
17. A perusal of the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court, placed on record as Annexure P-8, reveals that the petitioner was acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt, since the prosecution had failed to prove the case regarding overwriting in the certificate and also failed to establish the approximate period during which such overwriting had been done. The Court had also recorded the findings that the authorship of the alleged overwriting had not been established.
Since the petitioner was not honourably acquitted, he cannot ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:32:47 :::CIS 9 derive any benefit from the judgment of acquittal passed in his favour.
.
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had the occasion to consider the effect of acquittal in the criminal case while interfering with an order of dismissal and also the honourable acquittal in Deputy Inspector General of Police and another of versus S. Samuthiram, (2013) 1 SCC 598. The relevant paras of the judgment read as under:
rt "20. This Court in Southern Railway Officers Assn. v.
Union of India held that acquittal in a criminal case by itself cannot be a ground for interfering with an order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. The Court reiterated that the order of dismissal can be passed even if the delinquent officer had been acquitted of the criminal charge.
21. In State Bank of Hyderabad v. P. Kata Rao (SCC p. 662, para 18) this Court held that there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the jurisdiction of the superior courts in interfering with the finding of fact arrived at by the enquiring officer is limited and that the High Court would also ordinarily not interfere with the quantum of punishment and there cannot be any doubt of a dispute that only because the delinquent employee who was also facing a criminal charge stands acquitted, the same, by itself, would not debar the disciplinary authority in initiating a fresh departmental proceeding and/or where the departmental proceedings had already been initiated, ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:32:47 :::CIS 10 to continue therewith. In that judgment, this Court further held as follows: (SCC p. 662, para 20) "20. The legal principle enunciated to the effect that on the same set of facts the .
delinquent shall not be proceeded in a departmental proceedings and in a criminal case simultaneously, has, however, been deviated from. The dicta of this Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. however, remains unshaken although the applicability thereof had been found to be of dependent on the fact situation obtaining in each case."
22. In a later judgment of this Court in Karnataka SRTC v. M.G. Vittal Rao this Court after a detailed rt survey of various judgments rendered by this Court on the issue with regard to the effect of criminal proceedings on the departmental enquiry, held that the disciplinary authority imposing the punishment of dismissal from service cannot be held to be disproportionate or non-commensurate to the delinquency.
23. We are of the view that the mere acquittal of an employee by a criminal court has no impact on the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Department.
The respondent, it may be noted, is a member of a disciplined force and non-examination of two key witnesses before the criminal court that is Adiyodi and Peter, in our view, was a serious flaw in the conduct of the criminal case by the prosecution. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the possibility of winning over PWs 1 and 2 in the criminal case cannot be ruled out. We fail to see, why the prosecution had not examined Head Constable Adiyodi (No. 1368) and Peter (No. 1079) of Tenkasi Police Station. It was these two Head Constables who took the respondent from ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:32:47 :::CIS 11 the scene of occurrence along with PWs 1 and 2, husband and wife, to Tenkasi Police Station and it is in their presence that the complaint was registered. In fact, the criminal court has also opined that the .
signature of PW 1 (complainant husband) is found in Ext. P-1 complaint. Further, the doctor, PW 8 has also clearly stated before the enquiry officer that the respondent was under the influence of liquor and that he had refused to undergo blood and urine tests. That being the factual situation, we are of the view that the respondent was not honourably acquitted by the of criminal court, but only due to the fact that PW 1 and PW 2 turned hostile and other prosecution witnesses were not examined.
Honourable acquittal rt
24. The meaning of the expression "honourable acquittal" came up for consideration before this Court in RBI v. Bhopal Singh Panchal. In that case, this Court has considered the impact of Regulation 46(4) dealing with honourable acquittal by a court on the disciplinary proceedings. In that context, this Court held that the mere acquittal does not entitle an employee to reinstatement in service, the acquittal, it was held. has to be honourable. The expressions "honourable acquittal", "acquitted of blame". "fully exonerated" are unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Penal Code, which are coined by judicial pronouncements. It is difficult to define precisely what is meant by the expression "honourably acquitted". When the accused is acquitted after full consideration of prosecution evidence and that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused, it can possibly be said that the accused was honourably acquitted.
25. In R.P. Kapur v. Union of India" it was held that even in the case of acquittal, departmental ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:32:47 :::CIS 12 proceedings may follow where the acquittal is other than honourable. In State of Assam v. Raghava Rajgopalachari this Court quoted with approval the views expressed by Lord Williams, J. in Robert Stuart .
Wauchope v. Emperor which is as follows: (Raghava case, SLR p. 47, para 8) "8. "The expression "honourably acquitted" is one which is unknown to courts of justice.
Apparently it is a form of order used in courts martial and other extrajudicial tribunals. We said in our judgment that we accepted the of explanation given by the appellant, believed it to be true and considered that it ought to have been accepted by the government authorities and by the Magistrate. Further, we decided rt that the appellant had not misappropriated the monies referred to in the charge. It is thus clear that the effect of our judgment was that the appellant was acquitted as fully and completely as it was possible for him to be acquitted. Presumably, this is equivalent to what government authorities term "honourably acquitted"." (Robert Stuart case, ILR pp. 188-89)"
26. As we have already indicated, in the absence of any provision in the service rules for reinstatement, if an employee is honourably acquitted by a criminal court, no right is conferred on the employee to claim any benefit including reinstatement. Reason is that the standard of proof required for holding a person guilty by a criminal court and the enquiry conducted by way of disciplinary proceeding is entirely different. In a criminal case, the onus of establishing the guilt of the accused is on the prosecution and if it fails to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is assumed to be innocent. It is settled law that the strict ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:32:47 :::CIS 13 burden of proof required to establish guilt in a criminal court is not required in a disciplinary proceedings and preponderance of probabilities is sufficient. There may be cases where a person is .
acquitted for technical reasons or the prosecution giving up other witnesses since few of the other witnesses turned hostile, etc. In the case on hand the prosecution did not take steps to examine many of the crucial witnesses on the ground that the complainant and his wife turned hostile. The court, therefore, acquitted the accused giving the benefit of doubt. We of are not prepared to say that in the instant case, the respondent was honourably acquitted by the criminal court and even if it is so, he is not entitled to claim reinstatement since the Tamil Nadu Service Rules do rt not provide so.
27. We have also come across cases where the service rules provide that on registration of a criminal case, an employee can be kept under suspension and on acquittal by the criminal court, he be reinstated. In such cases, the reinstatement is automatic. There may be cases where the service rules provide that in spite of domestic enquiry, if the criminal court acquits an employee honourably, he could be reinstated. In other words, the issue whether an employee has to be reinstated in service or not depends upon the question whether the service rules contain any such provision for reinstatement and not as a matter of right. Such provisions are absent in the Tamil Nadu Service Rules.
28. In view of the abovementioned circumstances, we are of the view that the High Court was not justified in setting aside the punishment imposed in the departmental proceedings as against the respondent, in its limited jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:32:47 :::CIS 14
19. From the ratio laid down in the ibid judgment, it is crystal clear that even if the delinquent officer had been .
acquitted of the criminal charge, the order of dismissal can be passed. Further, since the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charges leveled against the accused, it can possibly be said that the accused was honourably acquitted. As already of observed above, in the case of the petitioner, he had not been honourably acquitted of the charges.
rt
20. The learned counsel also contended that while passing the dismissal order, the Disciplinary Authority had not given any reasons. It is now settled in catena of judgments that once the charges are proved in the enquiry and the Enquiry Officer returns the findings against the delinquent officer of the charges, the Disciplinary Authority is not required to record detailed reasons. Reference is made to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Boloram Bordoloi versus Lakhimi Gaolia Bank and others, (2021) 3 SCC 806 and the relevant para is reproduced hereunder:-
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:32:47 :::CIS 15"11. We are of the view that the judgment of this Court in ECIL³ is not helpful to the case of the appellant. Further, it is well settled that if the disciplinary authority accepts the findings recorded by .
the enquiry officer and passes an order, no detailed reasons are required to be recorded in the order imposing punishment. The punishment is imposed based on the findings recorded in the enquiry report, as such, no further elaborate reasons are required to be given by the disciplinary authority. As the departmental appeal was considered by the Board of of Directors in the meeting held on 10-12-2005, the Board's decision is communicated vide order dated 21-12-2005 in Ref. No. LGB/I&V/Appeal/31/02/2005-
06. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit rt in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the orders impugned are devoid of reasons."
21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has again reiterated the above view and the scope of interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in Airports Authority of India versus Pradip Kumar Banerjee, (2025) 4 SCC 111. The relevant paras are reproduced hereunder:
"35. It is trite law that in disciplinary proceedings, it is not necessary for the disciplinary authority to deal with each and every ground raised a by the delinquent officer in the representation against the proposed penalty and detailed reasons are required to be recorded in the order imposing punishment if he accepts the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer.::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:32:47 :::CIS 16
Our view stands fortified by the decision of this Court in Boloram Bordoloi v. Lakhimi Gaolia Bank, wherein it was held: (SCC p. 810, para 11) "11..... Further, it is well settled that if the .
disciplinary authority accepts the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and passes an order, no detailed reasons are required to be recorded in the order imposing punishment.
The punishment is imposed based on the findings recorded in the enquiry report, as such, no further elaborate reasons are of required to be given by the disciplinary authority."
36. All that is required on the part of the disciplinary authority is that it should examine the evidence in the rt disciplinary proceedings and arrive at a reasoned conclusion that the material placed on record during the course of enquiry establishes the guilt of the delinquent employee on the principle of preponderance of probabilities. This is precisely what was done by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority while dealing with the case of the respondent.
37. In our considered view, the Division Bench fell into grave error in substituting the standard of proof required in a criminal trial vis-à-vis the disciplinary enquiry conducted by the employer. It is a settled principle of law that the burden laid upon the prosecution in a criminal trial is to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. However, in a disciplinary enquiry, the burden upon the department is limited and it is required to prove its case on the principle of preponderance of probabilities.
38. In this regard, we are benefitted by the judgment of this Court in Union of India v. Sardar Bahadur, wherein this Court held as follows: (SCC р.
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:32:47 :::CIS 17623, para 15) "15.... A disciplinary proceeding is not a criminal trial. The standard proof required is that of preponderance of probability and not .
proof beyond reasonable doubt. If the inference that Nand Kumar was a person likely to have official dealings with the respondent was one which a reasonable person would draw from the proved facts of the case, the High Court cannot sit as a court of appeal over a decision based on it. Where there are some of relevant materials which the authority has accepted and which materials may reasonably support the conclusion that the officer is guilty, it is not the function of the High Court rt exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 to review the materials and to arrive at an independent finding on the materials. If the enquiry has been properly held the question of adequacy or reliability of the evidence cannot be canvassed before the High Court...."
39. We find that the learned Single Judge, while dealing with the writ petition filed by the respondent against the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority, considered the entire factual matrix in detail and dismissed the writ petition preferred by the respondent vide a detailed and well- reasoned judgment dated 29-6-2011."
22. In the case of the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer had returned the specific findings that the birth of year of Ratto Devi, who is younger sister of the petitioner, is 1955 and 4 th in rank below him and thus, the Disciplinary Authority was not ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:32:47 :::CIS 18 required to give elaborate reasons while passing the order of dismissal. It is not the case of the petitioner that date of birth of .
his sister, namely Ratto Devi, had wrongly been recorded as 1955. Once the petitioner himself had mentioned in Annexure P-2, in reply to the show cause notice, that Ratto Devi is younger to him by about four years, the competent authority rightly of passed the order of dismissal of the petitioner from service.
23. When the appeal was filed before the appellate rt authority, the appellate authority had considered the entire issue and came to the categorical conclusion that the petitioner had submitted an incorrect date of birth certificate. It has further been recorded in the order passed by the appellate authority that as per the statement made by the petitioner on 15.02.2011, his sister Ratto Devi is younger in age, by 4th rank and the year of birth of Smt. Ratto Devi has been mentioned as 1955.
24. A categorical finding had been given by the appellate authority that the petitioner used the certificate to ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:32:47 :::CIS 19 obtain the benefit of continued service for nearly ten years beyond the actual date of superannuation, thereby cheating the .
Government/Department to obtain pensionary and retiral benefits, which constitutes serious misconduct, and, therefore, the punishment of dismissal imposed by the appointing authority cannot be said to be excessive in comparison to the of gravity of the misconduct.
25. It is settled law that the Courts cannot sit in appeal rt over the penalty imposed upon a delinquent officer by the disciplinary authority. The Court can only intervene if the penalty imposed is disproportionate to the charges proved against delinquent officer.
26. In the present case, the petitioner submitted a certificate showing his age ten years younger than his actual age in order to continue in Government service, which amounts to serious misconduct, and, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the penalty of dismissal imposed upon him is neither wrong nor disproportionate to the charges ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:32:47 :::CIS 20 proved against him.
27. Consequently, I do not find any merit in the writ .
petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no orders as to cost.
28. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
of
07th March, 2026 rt ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj )
(ankit) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:32:47 :::CIS