( 2025:HHC:31204 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 6886/2024 Decided on: 11.09.2025 Roshan Lal …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr. G.R Palsra, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Petitioner is present in person. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J Pursuant to disciplinary proceedings held against the petitioner, the respondents on 16.09.2022 imposed penalty of ‘dies non for all intents and purposes’ upon the petitioner w.e.f. 17.08.2019 to 08.06.2022. Petitioner’s request for premature retirement was accepted by the respondents on 18.12.2023 w.e.f. 31.01.2024. On account of punishment of dies non imposed upon him for the period in question, petitioner has not received financial benefits for the period in question. The period in question has also not been counted 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 ( 2025:HHC:31204 for the purpose of pension. Petitioner feels aggrieved, hence the petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 3. The case 3(i) Petitioner was appointed as Driver on daily wage basis in the respondents-Education Department on 09.07.1996. His services were regularized w.e.f. 01.06.1998. On 25.05.2019, the petitioner was transferred from the office of Deputy Director Elementary Education District Kinnaur, Reckong Peo to the office of Directorate of Elementary Education, H.P. Shimla. Petitioner did not abide by the order and assailed it by instituting Roshan Lal Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.2 before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. The said case was disposed of on 16.07.2019. Taking note of petitioner’s submission that he was transferred from hard area without being given options for his posting, petitioner was permitted to make a representation, which was ordered to be decided by the respondents within time bound schedule as under: - “6. In the facts and circumstances and interest of justice, the original application is disposed of with the stipulation that subject to the applicant making a fresh detailed representation, supported by documents alongwith certified copy of this order, highlighting the above aspects and with a request for transfer against an existing/likely vacancy out of at least five such vacancies to be 2 OA No. 2942/2019 decided on 16.07.2019. 3 ( 2025:HHC:31204 indicated in the representation to meet the requirement under the transfer policy, to respondent No.2 within a week from today, who shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law, sympathetically, and the transfer policy framed by the State Government, by 31st August, 2019, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the applicant. 3(ii) Respondents rejected petitioner’s representation on 16.08.2019 on the ground of there being no feasibility of his positing at the stations of his choice. Petitioner was relieved the same day with direction to join at the transferred station. Petitioner did not join at the transferred station. A show cause notice was issued to him on 29.11.2019 in relation to his unauthorized absence from duties w.e.f. 17.08.2019. Reply filed by the petitioner to the show cause notice was not considered satisfactory. Memorandum of charge-sheet under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 was issued to him on 30.12.2019. The said memorandum contained single article of charge concerning petitioner’s not joining his duties at the transferred station and continuously defying the orders of the higher authorities w.e.f. 17.08.2019. The petitioner furnished his reply to the charge-sheet on 10.01.2020. 4 ( 2025:HHC:31204 3(iii) Petitioner instituted Roshan Lal Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.3. Vide order dated 02.05.2022 passed in the said petition, respondents were directed to consider petitioner’s representation for posting at station of his choice. Petitioner’s representation was turned down on 06.06.2022 and vide order dated 13.06.2022, the said petition was disposed of as the order dated 02.05.2022 had been complied with. All this while, the petitioner though had filed reply to the charge-sheet but did not participate in the inquiry proceedings. The inquiry report was furnished on 10.08.2020. On the basis of ex-parte inquiry conducted against the petitioner, wherein charge was held proved against him, the disciplinary authority i.e. respondent No.2 vide order dated 17.09.2022 imposed punishment of ‘dies non for all intents and purposes’ for petitioner’s willful un-authorized absence w.e.f. 17.08.2019 to 08.06.2022. This order was affirmed by the appellate authority on 25.05.2023. In the meanwhile, petitioner was permitted to join his duties on 09.06.2022. 3(iv) Petitioner’s request for voluntarily/premature retirement was accepted by the respondents on 18.12.2023 and petitioner accordingly, retired prematurely on 31.01.2024. The petitioner has claimed following substantive reliefs in this writ petition: - 3 CWP No. 1991/2019 decided on 13.06.2022 5 ( 2025:HHC:31204 “(i) That the order dated 30.12.2019 contained in Annexure P- 6, order dated 17.09.2022 contained in Annexure P-11 and order dated 25.05.2023 Annexure P-13 may kindly be quashed by issuing a writ of certiorari. (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to release the salary of the petitioner w.e.f. 17.08.2019 to 08.06.2022 after granting three increments by issuing a writ of mandamus.” 4. Consideration During hearing of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of instructions imparted to him by the petitioner, who has attended the hearing and has been identified by his learned counsel, submitted that the petitioner will restrict his prayer in this writ petition only for counting the period of his alleged willful/un-authorized absence w.e.f. 17.08.2019 to 08.06.2022 for the purposes of pension. The matter has been heard accordingly. Though it is substantiated from the case file that the petitioner did not participate in the inquiry conducted into the memorandum of charge-sheet issued against him, yet it is an admitted position that the petitioner had furnished his reply to the charge-sheet. It is also not disputed that the petitioner had rendered 23 years of service before the issuance of memorandum of charge- sheet/transfer order. Reply filed by the respondents does not indicate any other misadventure of the petitioner during his entire service 6 ( 2025:HHC:31204 career. The memorandum of charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 30.12.2019 for his remaining absent from duty w.e.f. 17.08.2019 to 08.06.2022. The genesis of problem appears to be an order issued on 25.05.2019, whereby petitioner was transferred from the office of Deputy Director Elementary Education District Kinnaur, Reckong Peo to the office of Director of Elementary Education, H.P. Shimla. Petitioner had though taken legal recourse against the transfer order, but remained unsuccessful. He put forth certain grounds for his not joining at the transferred station. Nonetheless fact remains that the petitioner did remain absent from duty for the period in question. However, in the given facts & circumstances, penalty of ‘dies-non for all intents & purposes’ imposed upon the petitioner vide order dated 17.09.2022 prima-facie appears to be harsh. Petitioner aged 54 years was nearing his retirement. This penalty has not only debarred him from receiving pay, increments etc. for the period in question, but has also imposed an impediment in counting the period in question towards pensionary benefits. The case record reflects that petitioner had in fact made representation on 31.05.2021 [Annexure P-16(colly)] for joining the duties. His representation was rejected by the respondents on 06.06.2022. Furthermore, the punishment order dated 17.09.2022 reflects that inquiry report furnished by the inquiry officer had straight away been acted upon by the disciplinary authority. Its copy was not even supplied to the petitioner. His 7 ( 2025:HHC:31204 response to the inquiry report was not even called for. In the given facts and circumstances, penalty of ‘dies non for all intents and purposes’ for the period 17.08.2019 to 08.06.2022 as imposed upon the petitioner needs to be re-considered by respondent No.2. 5. In view of above, impugned order dated 25.05.2023 (Annexure P-13) is quashed and set aside. Respondent No.1/competent authority is directed to re-consider petitioner’s appeal w.r.t. imposition of penalty of ‘dies non for all intents and purposes’ upon him. This exercise be carried out within six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 11th September, 2025(rohit)