( 2025:HHC:16813 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 7278/2024 Decided on: 30.05.2025 Sardar Singh …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Vijay Chaudhary, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Petitioner was serving as Central Head Teacher in the respondent-Education Department. Under office order dated 06.12.2022 (Annexure P-8), the respondents have dismissed him from service w.e.f. 02.05.2022 (date of his being sentenced to imprisonment). Petitioner’s appeal against the said order was also rejected on 18.06.2024 (Annexure P-11). Petitioner has assailed the aforesaid orders in this writ petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:16813 ) 2(i) Petitioner was serving as Central Head Teacher at Government Primary School Awanh, when FIR No. 92/2015 dated 15.10.2015 was registered against him and a co accused-Raj Kumar at Police Station Chowari, District Chamba, H.P. under Sections 354- A, 376(2)F, 377, 506, 202, 119 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 21(2) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (the ‘ POCSO Act’ in short). Sessions Trial No. 57/2015 relating to the aforesaid FIR culminated on 16.01.2019. Under this Judgment, the petitioner was held guilty under Sections 202 IPC and 21(2) of the POCSO Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and one year respectively with fine alongwith default clauses. Sardar Singh Vs. State of H.P.2 filed by the petitioner against the above judgment was dismissed by this Court on 21.03.2022. Sardar Singh Vs. State of H.P.3 filed the petitioner was also dismissed on 29.04.2022 by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The petitioner was detained in custody on 02.05.2022 to serve the sentence. 2(ii) In view of above, the respondent-Education Department placed the petitioner under deemed suspension on 04.05.2022. The suspension was reviewed & continued vide office order dated 14.10.2022. On 21.11.2022, the respondents issued an Office Memorandum proposing to award penalty of removal/termination from service under Rule 19 of the Central Civil Services 2Criminal Appeal No. 23/2019 decided on 21.03.2022 3Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 3633/2022 decided on 29.04.2022 3 ( 2025:HHC:16813 ) (Classification, Control and Appeal) [CCS (CCA)] Rules, 1965, upon the petitioner taking into account the gravity of the criminal charges proved against him. The petitioner was given an opportunity to represent against the proposed major penalty of removal/termination. The petitioner submitted his representation in response to the Office Memorandum. Vide office order dated 06.12.2022 (Annexure P-8) in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 19(i) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the Disciplinary Authority ordered petitioner’s dismissal from service w.e.f. 02.05.2022 i.e. the deemed date of sentence/imprisonment. Petitioner’s further appeal preferred on 27.03.2023 against the aforesaid dismissal order was also dismissed by the Competent Authority on 18.06.2024, keeping in view the gravity of petitioner’s misconduct. 3. The sole ground for assailing the impugned orders is that penalty imposed upon the petitioner is disproportionate to the charges proved against him. That instead of removal/termination, penalty of compulsory retirement should have been imposed upon him. 4. The penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner in exercise of power under Rule 19 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965. Rule 19 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, provides as under:- “19. Special procedure in certain cases 4 ( 2025:HHC:16813 ) Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 14 to rule 18- (i) where any penalty is imposed on a Government servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge, or (ii) where the disciplinary authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded by it in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules, or (iii) where the President is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold any inquiry in the manner provided in these rules. 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): Provided that the Commission shall be consulted, where such consultation is necessary, and the Government servant has been given an opportunity of representing against the advice of the Commission, within the time limit specified in clause (b) of sub-rule (3) of rule 15, before any orders are made In any case under this rule.” Rule 19(i) of the CCS(CCA) Rules empowers the Disciplinary Authority to impose penalty upon the Government servant on the ground of misconduct, which led to his conviction on a criminal charge. In the instant case, the petitioner was Incharge/Head Teacher of a Primary School, where the co accused Raj Kumar (a Junior Basic Teacher) was also serving as teacher. The allegations levelled against co-accused were that he sexually assaulted eight minor girl students studying in the said school, during school time. 5 ( 2025:HHC:16813 ) The co-accused Raj Kumar was directly under the suspension of the petitioner. Petitioner, despite being aware of the commission of crime, did not report the matter about serious offences involving moral turpitude committed by said Raj Kumar-the primary school teacher with minor girl students. Being Head Teacher & Incharge of Government Primary School Awanh, it was imperative for the petitioner to take prompt action & report the matter to concerned authorities after coming to know about the same. Factum of his non- reporting has been duly proved on record. Petitioner remained insensitive of the offences committed against the minor school girls in the school. Petitioner-Head Teacher has been held guilty under Section 202 IPC and 21(2) of the POCSO Act by the learned Trial Court and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and one year respectively for the commission of these offences. The findings of learned Trial Court have been affirmed by the High Court as well as by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Learned Trial Court in its judgment has held that:- 121. Further, in the attendant facts, circumstances and evidence on record, accused Sardar Singh, during the intervening period from January 2015 to August 2015, while discharging his duties as Incharge-cum-Central Head Teacher, GPS Awanh, failed to report the commission of offence committed by his co-accused Raj Kumar, who was his subordinate and under his control, upon the minor victim girls, who were students of his school. Accused 6 ( 2025:HHC:16813 ) Sardar Singh being Incharge-cum-Central Head Teacher of GPS Awanh, knowingly or having sufficient reasons to believe that his subordinate Raj Kumar had committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon minor victim girls, whose who were their students, had omitted to give the said information of the commission of the offence to the police. In this regard, there is sufficient incriminating evidence appeared on record that parents of the minor victim girls (PW1) to (PW8) had narrated the incident to their teacher (PW.21). The matter was also referred to their parents and teachers. On this, accused Sardar Singh, CHT of GPS Awanh vide letter dated 4.8.2015, had called for the explanation of accused Raj Kumar, wherein he had asked that three minor victim girls had narrated to him that he (accused Raj Kumar) used to sit in the class room by putting off his clothes. The accused used to ask the minor victim girls to put their hands on `shame shame place and is doing shame shame acts. As such, accused is doing indecent acts. He had been asked to explain about this. On explanation (PW.29/A), reply to explanation (PW.29/C) had been written by accused Raj Kumar, wherein he had clarified that one fine day in the class room, he was applying itching medicine on his scars, some of the students found him in such condition and started saying 'shame shame. He had also apologized for his these acts. On the basis of reply (PW.29/C), accused Sardar Singh had warned accused Raj Kumar not to repeat the incident in school in future. 122-123………………... 7 ( 2025:HHC:16813 ) 124. Thus, in concluding remarks, the criminal liablity fastened on accused Sardar Singh, prosecution has succeeded in proving that accused Sardar Singh, being Incharge of accused Raj Kumar failed to report the commission of sexual assault, who was his subordinate and under his control, upon minor victims and knowingly or has reasons to believe had failed and omitted to give information of the commission of offence to the police by his co- accused Raj Kumar. Thus, it may be legitimately be concluded that he being Incharge-cum-CHT of GPS Awanh was required to report the matter to the police or to take his control immediately after the occurrence. It is relevant to reproduce Section 21(2) of the Act: "Any person, being in-charge of any company or any an institution (by whatever name called) who fails to report the commission of an offence under sub-section (1) of Section 19 in respect of a subordinate under his control, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to one year and with fine." 125. The prosecution has proved on record that accused Sardar Singh was posted as Central Head Teacher-cum-Incharge in Government Primary School, Awanh, as per certificate PW.24/D, which has been duly established on record by Raman Bali (PW24) Clerk in Deputy Director Elementary Education Office, Chamba, who had prepared the certificate regarding the particulars of accused Sardar Singh. There is sufficient and cogent evidence on record that accused Sardar Singh had provided a blanket to the indecent acts of accused Raj Kumar despite knowingly or intentionally regarding the alleged incidents with the minor victim 8 ( 2025:HHC:16813 ) girls (PW1) to (PW8). The ocular and documentary evidence on record proves that accused Raj Kumar was his subordinate and under his control and being Incharge-cum-CHT of the school, he neither reported the matter to the police nor took any action for the acts of accused Raj Kumar. Instead, he had chosen to grant a pardon to accused Raj Kumar by issuing a warning.” At this juncture, it will be appropriate to refer to Union of India & Ors. Vs. Constable Sunil Kumar4, wherein it was held that in exercise of powers of judicial review interfering with punishment of dismissal on the ground that it was disproportionate, the punishment should not be merely disproportionate but should be striking disproportionate. Only in an extreme case, where on the face of it there is perversity or irrationality, there can be judicial review under Article 226 or 227 or under Article 32 of the Constitution. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:- “6.2 Even otherwise, the Division Bench of the High Court has materially erred in interfering with the order of penalty of dismissal passed on proved charges and misconduct of indiscipline and insubordination and giving threats to the superior of dire consequences on the ground that the same is disproportionate to the gravity of the wrong. In the case of Commandand, 22nd Battalion, CRPF Vs. Surinder Kumar5 while considering the power of judicial review of the High Court in interfering with the punishment of dismissal, it is observed and held by this Court after considering the earlier decision in the case of Union of India Vs R.K. Sharma6 that in exercise of powers of judicial review interfering with the punishment of dismissal on the ground that it was disproportionate, the punishment should not be merely 4Civil Appeal No.219/2023 decided on 19.01.2023 5(2011) 10 SCC 244 6 (2001) 9 SCC 592 9 ( 2025:HHC:16813 ) disproportionate but should be strikingly disproportionate. As observed and held that only in an extreme case, where on the face of it there is perversity or irrationality, there can be judicial review under Article 226 or 227 or under Article 32 of the Constitution.” Penalty of removal from services imposed upon the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority cannot be said to be disproportionate and unwarranted. The penalty was commensurate to the offences committed by the petitioner, gravity of his established misconduct and sensitivity of the case. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 30th May, 2025(rohit)