RAJESHWAR DAYAL JANARTHA v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS
CWP/12301/2025 · 2026-01-05
Sandeep Sharma
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 1130 (HP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 1130 (HP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.12301 of 2025
Date of Decision: 5.1.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Rajeshwar Dayal Janartha ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
…....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents –State.
Mr. Rajesh Kosh, Advocate, for respondent No.3. ___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, who has retired as Additional Commissioner (Sales Taxes and Excise G-I) on 31.7.2023 from the Excise and Taxation Department, is that disciplinary proceedings initiated against him in the year 2022 are not being taken to its logical end, as a result thereof, his gratuity amounting to Rs. 20.00 lakh has been withheld.
2.
Though as per stand taken by the learned counsel for the respondent-Accountant General, afore gratuity has been authorized in favour of the petitioner, but same is not being released to him on account of pendency of the disciplinary proceedings.
- 2 -
3.
Though petitioner pursuant to his having received notice dated 1.8.2022 (Annexure P-2) submitted reply on 12.8.2022, but fact remains that till date, no inquiry has been conducted. Needless to say, disciplinary proceedings, if any, initiated against a delinquent officer is required to be concluded within s reasonable period.
4.
In the case at hand, proceedings were initiated in the year 2022, but till date, same have not been concluded, as a result thereof, amount otherwise due to the petitioner as gratuity is being denied.
5.
Consequently, in view of the above, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the same with direction to the Secretary, Excise and Taxation, Government of Himachal Pradesh, to ensure that disciplinary proceedings in terms of notice dated 1.8.2022 (Annexure P-2) are taken to its logical end, expeditiously, preferably, within three months, failing which petitioner would be at liberty to approach this Court for release of gratuity, which has been otherwise authorized by the competent authority i.e. office of Accountant General. Ordered accordingly. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
January 5, 2026
(Sandeep Sharma), (manjit)
Judge