Himachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On: 29.07.2024 vs The State Of H.P. And Others on 29 July, 2024
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
2024:HHC:6196-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
.
CWP No. 1681 of 2020
Decided on: 29.07.2024
Dhani Ram ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of H.P. and others ... Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
___________________________________________________________________
For the petitioner : Mr. Anand Sharma, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Karan Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy AG.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the present petition may kindly be allowed, after summoning the record of the case and granting an opportunity of being heard to the parties, an appropriate writ in the nature of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 18.06.2014, which on the face of it is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to rule 10 of service jurisprudence and directing the respondents-
department to release all consequential benefits, i.e. gratuity, pensionary, pay and allowance for the intervening period of service w.e.f. 12.12.2003 to 31.12.2010 to the petitioner and 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2024 20:33:57 :::CIS 2
2024:HHC:6196-DB .
allow the pension from 1.1.2011 as per revised pay by treating this retirement w.e.f. 21.12.2010, i.e. the actual date on which he would have superannuated; such other or further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may kindly be passed in the interest of justice."
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are as under:-
The petitioner was an employee of HPPWD. He joined as a Work Charged Mate in the year 1990. In the year 2000, a complaint was filed against the petitioner by one Gorkhu Ram, his neighbour, alleging that the petitioner has two living wives. This led to issuance of a show cause notice to the petitioner by the respondent-Department dated 27.04.2001. To cut the controversy short, pursuant to this show cause notice, Departmental enquiry was held against the petitioner and vide Annexure P-3, order dated 12.12.2003, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of dismissal from service upon the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, he assailed the same. He initially filed an original application before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, which after abolition of the Tribunal was transferred to this Court and re-
registered herein as CWP-T No. 57 of 2010. This writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide Annexure P-4, dated 06.07.2011, in ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2024 20:33:57 :::CIS 3 2024:HHC:6196-DB .
terms whereof, the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority was set aside and the Authority was called upon to take a fresh call in the matter.
3. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority passed order dated 22.06.2012 (Annexure P-5) and this time, penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed upon the petitioner. Still feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide on 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-1). It is in this backdrop that the petitioner has approached this Court praying for the reliefs already enumerated herein above.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority have erred in holding that the petitioner had two wives on the face of there being a judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Arki, District Solan, i.e. Civil Suit No. 31/1 of 2005, titled as Smt. Dayawanti vs. Sh. Dhani Ram, in terms whereof, the Court of competent jurisdiction had passed a decree to the effect that the plaintiff therein i.e. Dayawanti was not the legally wedded wife of defendant Dhani Ram and entries in Gram Panchayat, Plania and entries in the Electoral Role office showing the plaintiff as wife of the defendant are illegal, wrong and null and void and inoperative. Accordingly, he has prayed that present ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2024 20:33:57 :::CIS 4 2024:HHC:6196-DB .
petition be allowed and the petitioner be granted the reliefs as prayed for after quashing the impugned orders.
5. Learned Deputy Advocate General has defended the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority. On the strength of the reply that has been filed to the writ petition, learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that there was plethora of evidence on record from which it could be proved that the petitioner had two wives and in this view of the matter, the findings returned by the Authorities called for no interference. He further submitted that otherwise, also as the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as wells as the Appellate Authority, were reasoned orders, this Court in exercise of its power of judicial review was not to sit as an appellate Court and re-appreciate the evidence.
Accordingly, he prayed that the present writ petition being devoid of merit be dismissed.
6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the entire record.
7. The premise on which the order of compulsory retirement has been passed against the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority and said order has been upheld by the Appellate Authority is that the petitioner had contracted two marriages. Appellate Authority after taking note of the judgment ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2024 20:33:57 :::CIS 5 2024:HHC:6196-DB .
passed by a Civil Court in a Civil Suit filed by the Dayawanti went on to discard the said judgment by relying upon the findings returned by the Disciplinary Authority by assigning the reason that there was on record a certificate of Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Plania, depicting Dayawanti as wife of Shri Dhani Ram and the order passed by learned Additional CJM, Arki dated 26.12.2002, in Criminal Case No. 91/2 of 1998 reflected both Ramku Devi and Daya Devi as wives of Sh. Dhani Ram. Learned Appellate Authority also held that copy of Parivar register countersigned by the SDM Arki also mentioned Ramkoo Devi and Dayawanti both as wives of Sh. Dhani Ram and even the electoral role of 2002 mentions Ramku Devi and Dayawanti as wives of Dhani Ram. Appellate Authority also observed that a copy of the Parivar register also reflected Ramkoo and Dayawanti as wives of Dhani Ram. It further observed that though in the Parivar Register, the name of Dayawanti was scored out to give effect to the order of Sub Judge Arki, wherein Dayawanti was not treated to be a legally wedded wife of Sh. Dhani Ram for want of proof of proper marriage rituals required to constitute a marriage, but the record clearly demonstrated Smt. Dayawanti as wife of Sh. Dhani Ram.
8. This Court is of the considered view that the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority that Dayawanti was the wife of Dhani Ram are perverse findings.
::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2024 20:33:57 :::CIS 62024:HHC:6196-DB .
Both the Authorities have erred in not appreciating that the judgment and decree passed by a Civil Court, in terms whereof a declaration was given by the competent Court of law that Dayawanti was not the legally wedded wife of Sh. Dhani Ram, eclipsed everything else and no document could have been looked into by either of the Authorities in returning a finding, which was contrary to the adjudication made by the civil Court.
9. In fact, in the teeth of a declaration having been given by the Civil Court, the issue as to whether Dayawanti was or was not the wife of Dhani Ram, was no more res integra and this declaration was binding both on the Disciplinary Authority as well the Appellate Authority.
10. It is pertinent to mention that the date of judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Court is 06.11.2008. The order that was passed by the Disciplinary Authority pursuant to the direction passed by this Court in CWP-T No. 57 of 2010 was passed on 22.06.2012 when the judgment passed by the learned Civil Court was already in existence. Now incidentally, the Authorities, i.e. the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority, have brushed aside the declaration given by a Civil Court by relying upon ancillary record without appreciating that in the decree that was passed by the Civil Court, it was clearly, unambiguously and ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2024 20:33:57 :::CIS 7 2024:HHC:6196-DB .
specifically mentioned that the entries in the record of the Gram Panchayat, Plania and the entries in the Electoral Role Office reflecting the plaintiff (Dayawanti) as wife of defendant (Dhani Ram) were illegal, wrong, null and void and inoperative.
11. In fact, this Court has no hesitation in observing that the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority erred in not appreciating the very basic principle of law that the judgments and decrees passed by the Civil Courts are binding and in the present case, as the issue before the learned Civil Court was 'whether Dayawanati was the legally wedded wife of Dhani Ram', which was answered by it by holding that Dayawanti was not the legally wedded wife of Dhani Ram and as the issue in the Disciplinary proceedings was also 'whether Dhani Ram had contracted two marriages or not' then in the light of the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court, neither of the Authorities could have imposed penalty upon the present petitioner by holding that Dayawanti was the second wife of Dhani Ram.
12. As far as the argument raised by learned Deputy Advocate General that this Court in the course of exercising the power of judicial review is not to sit as an appellate Authority by re-
appreciating the evidence, all that this Court can observe is that it is the duty of this Court in exercise of its power of judicial review to ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2024 20:33:57 :::CIS 8 2024:HHC:6196-DB .
correct any perversity in the findings returned by the quasi judicial authorities and herein as the perversity is writ large, therefore, this Court has to intervene so that justice is done.
13. Accordingly, in view of above findings, this petition succeeds and the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 22.06.2012 (Annexure P-5) as well as Appellate Authority dated 18.02014 (Annexure P-1 are quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to treat the petitioner to be in service till his superannuation for all intents and purposes and confer upon him all benefits, including the monetary as from the due date including retiral benefits. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 29, 2024 (narender) ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2024 20:33:57 :::CIS