1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.6734 of 2025 Date of decision: 20.05.2025 Pawan Kumar. ...Petitioner. Versus HRTC & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Ashok K. Verma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashishat, Advocate. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner is aggrieved against office order dated 12.06.2024 issued by the Disciplinary Authority imposing penalty of censure and recovery of Rs.25,256/- upon him and also the order passed by the Appellate Authority on 17.08.2024, whereby the recovery was restricted to 60% of Rs.25,256/- by slightly modifying the order of the Disciplinary Authority. 2. Facts of the case. 2(i). Petitioner is serving as Driver with the respondent-Corporation. On 09.04.2024, respondent No.3 issued a memorandum to the petitioner under Rule 16 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) -2- Rules, 1965, (in short ‘CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965’) with the allegations that:- The petitioner was driving on bus No.HP- 28-2293 enroute from Jammu to Dharampur on 28.09.2023; During inspection of the bus at the workshop, its front glass was found broken; This had happened due to the negligence on the part of petitioner in performing his duties; Petitioner’s negligence had caused a loss of Rs.25,256/- to the Corporation. 2(ii). Pursuant to the aforesaid memorandum, the petitioner furnished his response on 20.04.2024. Petitioner did not admit the allegations levelled against him. He termed the allegations as devoid of basic foundational facts and baseless. It was his specific stand that the bus in question had been operated by many other drivers, even after 28.09.2023. No defect related to the breakage of front glass had been pointed out by the subsequent drivers in the workshop. This fact did not find mention in the logbook. The petitioner requested the Disciplinary Authority to confirm his defense by checking the logbook and the Defect Register. 2(iii). The respondents issued office order on 12.06.2024 (Annexure P-3), in terms of which petitioner’s -3- response was found unsatisfactory and penalty of Censure and recovery of Rs.25,256/- was imposed upon him as financial loss caused to the Corporation. Petitioner preferred appeal on 15.06.2024 before the Appellate Authority against the aforesaid penalty order. Petitioner reiterated in his appeal that he was not at all responsible for the breakage of the front glass of the bus. That even after 28.09.2023, the bus had been driven by many drivers of the Corporation in succession, who did not report breakage in the front glass. The petitioner also prayed for conducting a departmental inquiry into the matter. 2(iv). The Appellate Authority on 17.08.2024 (Annexure P-5) confirmed the penalty of Censure but modified the recovery order inasmuch as instead of Rs.25,256/-, recovery of 60% of the loss, i.e. Rs.15,154/- was ordered to be imposed upon the petitioner. 2(v). Second appeal preferred by the petitioner on 07.09.2024 before the Managing Director-respondent No.1 was disposed of vide Annexure P-6, as not maintainable. -4- In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner has instituted this writ petition assailing the orders passed by Disciplinary as also the Appellate Authorities. 3. Following order was passed in the matter on 25.04.2025: - “Notice. Ms. Shrutika Chauhan, Advocate, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. From the documents placed on record, it appears that the respondents have imposed minor penalty upon the petitioner in exercise of power under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. 3. Let learned counsel for the respondents obtain instructions in the first instance as to whether the procedure prescribed under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was followed while imposing penalty upon the petitioner, particularly in light of the pleadings in the writ petition and the stand taken by the petitioner before the competent authority in response to the notice issued to him. List the matter during the course of next week for the purpose of instructions.” Pursuant to the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the respondents placed on record office instructions dated 07.05.2025 and 30.04.2025 from the Regional Manager, HRTC, Dharmapur and submitted that aforesaid instructions be taken as stand of the respondents in this writ petition as no separate reply is intended to be filed by them. Matter has been heard accordingly. -5- 4. According to the respondents, on 28.09.2023 the petitioner had reached the workshop with bus No.HP-28A- 2293. His bus was inspected by the Head Mechanic. The front glass of the bus was found broken. This was on account of negligence in petitioner’s driving. The Head Mechanic had submitted his report in the office on 12.03.2024 and the work of front glass replacement was got carried out by the respondents after incurring cost of Rs.25,256/-. Accordingly, Memorandum of Charges was issued to the petitioner on 09.04.2024 under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. He furnished his reply on 23.04.2024. The reply was considered by the Disciplinary Authority, i.e. Regional Manager, HRTC, Dharmpur. It was found unsatisfactory. Petitioner was heard in person on 29.04.2024, whereafter the penalty of Censure and recovery of amount of loss sustained by the respondent-Corporation amounting to Rs.25,256/- was imposed upon him under office order dated 12.06.2024. Petitioner’s appeal against the aforesaid order was dismissed in accordance with law by the Appellate Authority, i.e. Divisional Manager, HRTC, though modifying the recovery amount by 60% of the loss suffered by HRTC. -6- 4(i). Under Rule 11 of the CCS(CC&A) Rules, 1965, following minor penalties can be imposed:- “11. Penalties The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on a Government servant, namely:- Minor Penalties (i) censure; (ii) withholding of his promotion; (iii) recovery from his pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by him to the Government by negligence or breach of orders; (iii a) reduction to lower stage in the time-scale of pay by one stage for a period not exceeding three years, without cumulative effect and not adversely affecting his pension. (iv) withholding of increments of pay;” Rule 16 of the CCS(CC&A) Rules prescribes following procedure for imposing minor penalties (relevant extract only):- “16. PROCEDURE FOR IMPOSING MINOR PENALTIES: (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (5) of rule 15, no order imposing on a Government servant any of the penalties specified in clause (i) to (iv) of rule 11 shall be made except after- (a) informing the Government servant in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour on which it is proposed to be taken, and giving him reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal; (b) holding an inquiry in the manner laid down in sub-rules (3) to (23) of rule 14, in every case in which the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that such inquiry is necessary; -7- (c) taking the representation, if any, submitted by the Government servant under clause (a) and the record of inquiry, if any, held under clause (b) into consideration; (d) consulting the Commission where such consultation is necessary. The Disciplinary Authority shall forward or cause to be forwarded a copy of the advice of the Commission to the Government servant, who shall be required to submit, if he so desires, his written representation or submission on the advice of the Commission, to the Disciplinary Authority within fifteen days; and (e) recording a finding on each imputation or misconduct or misbehaviour. (1-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (b) of sub-rule (1), if in a case it is proposed after considering the representation, if any, made by the Government servant under clause (a) of that sub-rule, to withhold increments of pay and such withholding of increments is likely to affect adversely the amount of pension payable to the Government servant or to withhold increments of pay for a period exceeding three years or to withhold increments of pay with cumulative effect for any period, an inquiry shall be held in the manner laid down in sub-rules (3) to (23) of Rule 14, before making any order imposing on the Government servant any such penalty. (2) The record of the proceedings in such cases shall include- (i) a copy of the intimation to the Government servant of the proposal to take action against him; (ii) a copy of the statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour delivered to him; (iii) his representation, if any; (iv) the evidence produced during the inquiry; (v) the advice of the Commission, if any; (vi) representation, if any, of the Government servant on the advice of the Commission; (vii) the findings on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour; and (viii) the orders on the case together with the reasons therefor. …………………………...” -8- Here it will be appropriate to refer to G.I., Dept. of Per. & Trg., O.M. No. 11012/18/85-Estt. (A), dated the 28th October, 1985, which inter alia states that the disciplinary authority should apply its mind to all facts and circumstances and the reasons urged in the representation for holding a detailed inquiry and form an opinion whether an inquiry is necessary or not, as under:- “(i)…………. (2) …………………………..Rule 16 (1-A) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, provides for the holding of an inquiry even when a minor penalty is to be imposed in the circumstances indicated therein. In other cases, where a minor penalty is to be imposed, Rule 16 (1) ibid leaves it to the discretion of disciplinary authority to decide whether an inquiry should be held or not. The implication of this rule is that on receipt of representation of Government servant concerned on the imputations of misconduct or misbehavior communicated to him, the disciplinary authority should apply its mind to all facts and circumstances and the reasons urged in the representation for holding a detailed inquiry and form an opinion whether an inquiry is necessary or not. In case where a delinquent Government servant has asked for inspection of certain documents and cross examination of the prosecution witnesses, the disciplinary authority should naturally apply its mind more closely to the request and should not reject the request solely on the ground that in inquiry is not mandatory. If the records indicate that, notwithstanding the points urged by the Government servant, the disciplinary authority could, after due consideration, come to the conclusion that an inquiry is not necessary, it should say so in writing indicating its reasons, instead of rejecting the request for holding inquiry summarily without any indication that it has applied its mind to the request, as such an action could be construed as denial of natural justice.” Respondents had issued the chargesheet to the petitioner under Rule 16 CCS(CC&A) Rules on 09.04.2025 -9- for imposing minor penalty. The petitioner had denied the charges levelled against him and had requested the respondents to conduct an inquiry into the matter. Petitioner’s request for an inquiry assumes significance considering his defence that he had drove the bus in question on 28.09.2023 and thereafter, several other drivers drove it without any complaint. Even according to the respondents, the Head Mechanic had submitted his report on 12.03.2024 pertaining to the alleged negligence on part of petitioner on 28.09.2023. It is not the case of the respondents that the Disciplinary Authority on considering the response of the petitioner to the memo had formed an opinion as to whether an inquiry in the matter was necessary or not. Learned counsel for the respondents has fairly submitted that no order either way had been passed by the Disciplinary Authority under Rule 16. Further the impugned order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is absolutely non-speaking. It does not reveal any reason, does not give out any justification for imposing minor penalty upon the petitioner or as to why the petitioner’s reply was found unsatisfactory. Considering that respondents did not intend to hold any inquiry against the petitioner, some -10- reasoning for discarding the petitioner’s response/defense should have been laid out in the order before holding him guilty of the charge levelled against him. Principles of natural justice have not been complied with by the respondents. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 12.06.2024 (Annexure P-3) & 17.08.2024 (Annexure P-5) are quashed and set aside. Liberty, however, is reserved to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner afresh, in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of in above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 20th May, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)