2025:HHC:20623 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.8525 of 2025 Decided on: 26.06.2025 __________________________________________________________ Jagdish Kumar ...Petitioner Versus The High Court of Himachal ...Respondents Pradesh & Others Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?. For the petitioner: Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Advocate. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice [Oral] The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 29.01.2025, whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension by the District & Sessions Judge, Mandi, while exercising powers under Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 10, read with Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. By the said order, the petitioner’s headquarter was shifted to the Office of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sarkaghat, on account of the fact that disciplinary proceedings were 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:20623 - 2 - contemplated against him, when he was working as a Criminal Ahlmad in the office of the Civil Judge-cum- JMFC, Gohar. 2. Apparently, a complaint was received by the authorities in the form of a resolution dated 09.01.2023 passed by the Bar Association, Gohar, District Mandi, wherein it was noted that the conduct of the petitioner was inappropriate and he was not behaving in a decent manner with Advocates and litigants. Consequently, a request was made for his transfer. 3. The District & Sessions Judge, Mandi, thereafter sought comments from the Civil Judge-cum- JMFC, Gohar, District Mandi, on 22.01.2025, which were submitted on 29.01.2025. The said comments indicate that since the said Officer had recently joined, she referred to a report from the Court Superintendent, stating that the petitioner used to misbehave with him and the staff and also questioned her authority, when he was directed to prepare deficient copies of documents in FIR No. 68 of 2022. 4. A preliminary inquiry was directed to be held vide communication dated 21.02.2025. The said inquiry, 2025:HHC:20623 - 3 - conducted on 06.03.2025, substantiating the allegations regarding the petitioner’s behavior. Statements of two officials posted at Gohar along with Court Superintendent and members of the Bar Association were recorded. It has also come to light during the inquiry that the petitioner used to suggest the litigants to engage Advocates from Mandi instead of Gohar, where he had previously been posted. Based on the said preliminary inquiry, a charge sheet was issued on 21.04.2025, outlining three Articles of Charge framed by the District & Sessions Judge, Mandi, which are as follows: “Article-I Whereas, as resolution dated 09.01.2025 of Bar Association Gohar, against said Sh. Jagdish Kumar, (under suspension) while functioning/ posted as Criminal Ahlmad, in the office of the Civil Judge-cum- JMFC, Gohar, was received in this office through post and the copy of the same was addressed to Hon'ble the Chief Justice, High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla. The Civil Judge-cum- JMFC, Gohar, conducted a preliminary inquiry in the matter and submitted her report which stood proved against Sh. Jagdish Kumar, (under suspension) aforesaid. Article-II That the said Jagdish Kumar, (under 2025:HHC:20623 - 4 - suspension) had been found absent from the headquarter (office of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sarkaghat) during surprise inspection conducted by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sarkaghat, on 5th March, 2025 at 11:50 A.Μ. Further, vide letter No.AD&SJ/ SKGT/2025-366, dated 17-03-2025, the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sarkaghat, submitted a complaint of misconduct against said Sh. Jagdish Kumar, (under suspension) aforesaid to this office. Article-III That Sh. Jagdish Kumar (under suspension) has sent an application dated 04-02-2025, directly to Hon'ble the Chief Justice, High Court of Himachal Pradesh Shimla in violation of the Hon'ble High Court letter No HHC/Admn.2(49)/84-11, dated 27th December, 1995 and Conduct Rules, 1965. The omission and commission of the above acts by the said Sh. Jagdish Kumar, aforesaid amounts to insubordination, gross-negligence and misconduct on his (Jagdish Kumar) part and the aforesaid conduct is totally unbecoming a public servant and as such Sh. Jagdish Kumar, has contravened the provision of Rule 3(1)(i) and (iii) of the CCS (Conduct Rules), 1965. Hence, this charge sheet.” 5. In pursuance of the said charge-sheet, an Inquiry Officer, namely, Sh. Yudh Veer Singh, Civil Judge-cum-JMFC, Court No.1, Sarkaghat, was appointed vide order dated 06.05.2025. Additionally, Sh. Padam Nabh Sharma, Reader in the Office of the Additional 2025:HHC:20623 - 5 - District & Sessions Judge, Sarkaghat, was appointed as Presenting Officer under Sub-Rule (5)(c) of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. 6. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the inquiry was conducted behind the petitioner’s back, in violation of the principles of natural justice. He further contended that the suspension order is liable to be revoked, after the expiry of 90 days. 7. We are not inclined to interfere in the Departmental proceedings in view of the settled principles of law. In the absence of any mala fides, there is no cause for intervention. The complaint originated from the Bar Association was sought to be inquired into and the fact-finding preliminary inquiry was conducted, in which the petitioner was not got associated. It is on the basis of the same, a charge-sheet has been issued and the departmental inquiry is now underway, which will take its due course. 8. The argument that the Officer who conducted the preliminary inquiry had acted as a Judge in the same inquiry, is without basis. The duty of the said Officer was only to conduct a fact-finding inquiry to determine 2025:HHC:20623 - 6 - whether the charge-sheet ought to be issued, based on the resolution passed by the Bar Association. The fact remains that the petitioner was found absent from the station on particular date, despite having been directed to remain present. Additionally, the petitioner’s act of directly corresponding with this Court in violation of the prescribed instructions, needs to be factually thrashed out. Therefore, the fact-finding inquiry was only for the purpose whether the allegations contained in the Bar’s resolution had any strength, and accordingly, the views of members of the Bar Association were taken into consideration, and of other staff members. 9. In Champak Lal Chimanlal Shah versus Union of India, (1964) 5 SCR 190, a Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court noticed that if there is an intention by way of punishment a preliminary inquiry may be conducted in the first instance with the alleged misconduct or unsatisfactory work. The same makes a prima facie case against the government servant concerned; charges are then framed against him and he will be asked to show cause why disciplinary action be not taken against him. An enquiry officer, then is to be 2025:HHC:20623 - 7 - appointed and the inquiry is to be held in accordance with principles of natural justice and in the subsequent inquiry, the right of the government servant is there to cross-examine the witnesses. It was accordingly held that it is necessary that the two should not be confused with a regular Departmental inquiry. 10. Similarly, a three-Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narayan Dattatraya Ramteerthakhar versus State of Maharashtra and Others, (1997) 1 SCC 299, while dealing with an issue of misappropriation, rejected the contention of preliminary inquiry which was not properly conducted by holding that it has nothing to do with the inquiry conducted after the issuance of charge-sheet. The earlier action was held to find out whether the disciplinary inquiry should be initiated against the delinquent and after full-fledged inquiry is held the preliminary inquiry loses its importance. Thus, the argument of the counsel that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to be associated with the preliminary inquiry, is without any basis. 11. A perusal of Annexure R-3 along with charge- sheet would go on to show that not only the letter dated 2025:HHC:20623 - 8 - 21.02.2025 issued by the District & Sessions Judge, Mandi, but also the preliminary inquiry report dated 06.03.2025 has been supplied to the petitioner, as they find mention in the list of documents and therefore, it cannot be said that he has been prejudiced in any manner. 12. The judgment in Union of India and others vs. Ram Lakhan Sharma, AIR 2018 SCC 4860, decided on 02.07.2018, does not assist the petitioner, as it pertains to a case where the Inquiry Officer acted both as prosecutor and Judge in the main disciplinary proceedings, which had already culminated. However, the present proceedings have not yet reached that stage. 13. Apparently, there are various other Articles also, on the basis of which, the petitioner has been charged apart from the resolution, as such, passed by the Bar Association, which would be clear from the Articles of charge-sheet, as reproduced above. The factual matrix needs to be adjudicated in the Departmental proceedings and not by this Court under writ jurisdiction, particularly in the absence of any arbitrariness or mala fide on the part of the authorities. 2025:HHC:20623 - 9 - 14. The procedure followed appears to be in accordance with the Rules. In light of the decision in State of Punjab vs. V.K. Khanna & Others, 2001 (2) SCC 330, it is well settled that Departmental proceedings should not be cut-short at the initial stage, and challenge cannot be permitted to the charge-sheet at the first instance in the absence of any mala fides. The relevant paragraph, reads as under: “33. While it is true that justifiability of the charges at the stage of initiating a disciplinary proceeding cannot possibly be delved into by any court pending inquiry but it is equally well settled that in the event there is an element of malice or mala fide, motive involved in the matter of issue of a charge-sheet or the authority concerned is so biased that the inquiry would be a mere farcical show and the conclusions are well known then and in that event law courts are otherwise justified in interfering at the earliest stage so as to avoid the harassment and humiliation of a public official….” 15. With respect to the contention regarding revocation of suspension, since the requisite period of 90 days has expired, it has not been shown to us that the petitioner has submitted any representation to the 2025:HHC:20623 - 10 - competent authority for the same. It is open to him to do so, and the concerned authority is free to take a call to consider such representation in accordance with law. It is settled principle that without having approached the appropriate authority, strictly speaking, a writ petition is ordinarily not maintainable. However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner claims to be aggrieved, we deem it fit that it would be open to the petitioner to make a representation and the concerned authority will accordingly take a call on the same in accordance with law. Resultantly, we dismiss the writ petition. 16. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge June 26, 2025 [Shivender/Chiranjeev]