Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sh. Geeta Ram vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And on 26 August, 2022
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 26th DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL
CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 1838 of 2022
Between:-
SH. GEETA RAM, S/O LATE
BHARAT SINGH, R/O VILLAGE
DHAR-CHULRIYA, P.O.
DADAHU, TEHSIL DADAHU,
DISTRICT SIRMOUR, H.P.
...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI NISHANT KHIDTTA, ADVOCATE,
VICE MR. V.D. KHIDTTA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL
PRADESH THROUGH ITS
SECRETARY (JAL SHAKTI
VIBHAG) TO THE GOVT. OF H.P.
SHIMLA-2.
2. ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF (JAL
SHAKTI VIBHAG), U.S. CLUB,
SHIMLA-1.
3. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
(JAL SHAKTI CIRCLE), NAHAN,
DISTRICT SIRMOUR, H.P.
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
JAL SHAKTI DIVISION, NAHAN,
DISTRICT SIRMOUR, H.P.
....RESPONDENTS
::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2022 20:00:21 :::CIS
2
(M/S SUMESH RAJ, DINESH THAKUR &
SANJEEV SOOD, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE
GENERALS, WITH MR. AMIT KUMAR
.
DHUMAL, DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL
AND MR. MANOJ BAGGA, ASSISTANT
ADVOCATE GENERAL)
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
___________________________________________________________
This petition coming on for hearing this day, the Court passed the
following:-
JUDGMENT
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of office order dated 25.03.2022 (Annexure P-9) and for his reinstatement as Mason on regular basis with all consequential benefits.
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of present petition are that the petitioner was initially engaged as a Mason in the respondent-
Department on daily wage basis in the year 1988. After prolonged litigation, his services were ordered to be regularized on completion of ten years service by this Court in terms of judgment dated 30.07.2010, passed in CWP No. 2584 of 2008, titled as Geeta Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others. Subsequent facts which are not necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are not being referred to. Vide Memorandum dated 17.03.2022 (Annexure P-7), a show cause was issued to the petitioner that as the petitioner stood convicted under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code as per the inquiry report submitted vide letter dated 16.03.2022 by the Assistant Engineer -Jitender Thakur, who was the Inquiry Officer on a charge ::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2022 20:00:21 :::CIS 3 regarding submission of a fake birth certificate submitted by the petitioner at the time of his initial appointment in Jal Shakti Vibhag, therefore, the .
disciplinary authority proposed to award an appropriate penalty under Rule-
19 of The Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 taking into account the gravity of the charges. It was further stated in the Memorandum that as on perusal of the inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority has provisionally come to the conclusion that the petitioner was not a fit person to be retained in Government service and the gravity of the charge warrants the imposition of a major penalty and the Disciplinary Authority proposed to impose upon the petitioner the penalty of dismissal from service, therefore, time was granted to the petitioner to show cause as to why the same be not done.
3. This Memorandum is replied to by the petitioner in terms of Annexure P-8, in which, while denying the allegations mentioned in the Memorandum, it was further submitted that one Dinesh Kumar had enmity with him on account of a land dispute and Dinesh Kumar had lodged a false complaint against him with the Police. It was mentioned in the reply by the petitioner that he had not been convicted by any Court of law and that a false complaint stood filed against him under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code by Dinesh Kumar.
4. Thereafter, vide office order dated 25.03.2022 (Annexure P-9), the petitioner was dismissed from service by the Disciplinary Authority in ::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2022 20:00:21 :::CIS 4 exercise of powers so conferred under the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 by holding that as the Disciplinary Authority was not satisfied with the reply that was filed .
by the petitioner to the Memorandum, therefore, the Disciplinary Authority in exercise of power conferred under Rule 12 of the CCS(CCA) Rules was dismissing the petitioner from service with immediate effect.
5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has primarily argued that the impugned office order dated 25.03.2022 (Annexure P-9) is per se void abinitio, for the reason that invocation of provisions of Rule 19 of the CCS(CCA) Rules in the facts of the case of the petitioner was not called for and this extremely important aspect of the matter has not been gone into by the disciplinary authority while passing the impugned order. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner was not convicted by any Court of law and as the impugned order has been passed on the incorrect notion that the petitioner stood convicted in a criminal case, the petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.
7. Learned Additional Advocate General has fairly stated that there appears to be merit in the contention of the petitioner, but he submits that as the impugned order is likely to be set aside on technical grounds, therefore, the same should not be construed as if a clean chit has been given by this Court to the petitioner and in case the Court is pleased to allow the writ ::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2022 20:00:21 :::CIS 5 petition, then the respondent-Department be given liberty to take appropriate action against the petitioner as per the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, if so advised.
.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the documents appended therewith and the record which has been produced by the learned Additional Advocate General.
9. Rule-19 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, inter alia, provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Rules 14 to 18 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, where any penalty is imposed on a Government servant on the ground of conduct, which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge, the Disciplinary Authority may consider the circumstances of the case and make such orders thereon as it deems fit, provided that the Government servant may be given an opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed before any order is made in a case under Clause (i), i.e., the Clause which confers power upon the disciplinary authority to impose penalty on the basis of conviction on a criminal charge. In the present case, it is not in dispute that on the basis of a complaint which has been filed against the petitioner under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, till date he has not been convicted by any Court of law. That being the fact situation, the proceedings which were initiated against the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority by exercising powers conferred under Rule-19 of the CCS(CCA) Rules by way of issuance of Memorandum dated 17.03.2022 (Annexure P-7) were per se bad and the Office Order which was subsequently issued by the ::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2022 20:00:21 :::CIS 6 Disciplinary Authority on 25.03.2022 (Annexure P-9), in terms whereof, the petitioner has been dismissed from service is also per se bad and not .
sustainable in the eyes of law. The Court again reiterates that office order dated 25.03.2022 is bad in law for the reason that it has been passed by the disciplinary authority without appreciating that as the petitioner was not convicted on a criminal charge by any Court of law, therefore, the procedure, as is envisaged under Rule 19 of the CCS (CCA) Rules could not have been adopted for initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner on the ground of conviction.
10. Accordingly, in view of what has been held hereinabove, this petition is allowed. Annexure P-9 dated 25.03.2022, in terms whereof, the petitioner was dismissed from service, is quashed and set aside.
Consequences to ensue. As far as the prayer made by learned Additional Advocate General is concerned, all that this Court can observe is this that as the petition has been allowed on technical ground, the Disciplinary Authority thus has the right to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law, if so advised, but taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner was to superannuate after five days as from the date when he was dismissed from service, the Court hopes and expects, as prayed for by learned counsel for the petitioner, in the peculiar facts of the case that the Disciplinary Authority shall take a sympathetic view in the matter. This is more so for the reason that the allegations which have been levelled against the petitioner have not ::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2022 20:00:21 :::CIS 7 yet been proved and further as per the petitioner, the allegations were levelled on account of enmity between him and the complainant. With these .
observations, the petition stands disposed of, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
August 26, 2022
(bhupender)
r to
::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2022 20:00:21 :::CIS