2025:HHC:27462 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.11778 of 2025 Decided on: 14th August, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sanjeev Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Prem Chand Verma, Mr. Varun Thakur and Mr. Aakash Thakur, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajat Choudhry, Assistant Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Mr. Prashant Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge This writ petition has been filed seeking following substantive relief:- “A) That the impugned office orders Annexure P-7 dated 2.7.2024 (whereby re-inquiry has been contemplated), Annexures P-11 dt. 9.5.2024 (whereby suspension of the petitioner has been extended) and Annexure P-12 dated 12.6.2025 (wherein Inquiry Officer has been appointed), are illegal and may kindly be quashed and set-aside.” 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:27462 Following order was passed in this matter on 31.07.2025:- “After arguing for some time, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the relief prayed in this petition be treated to have been confined only qua suspension of the petitioner under order dated 02.07.2024 (Annexure P-7) and extended further from time to time under orders dated 12.11.2024 (Annexure P-8) and 09.05.2025 (Annexure P-11) and that other reliefs pertaining to chargesheet issued against the petitioner be treated to have been given up. In view of above, this writ petition is treated to have been filed only qua suspension of the petitioner. Let learned Counsel for the respondents No. 2 & 3 to file reply/instructions with respect to continued suspension of the petitioner. Needful be done within ten days. List on 12.08.2024.” Learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 had placed on record office instructions dated 08.08.2025 during hearing of the case on 12.08.2025. He submits that the respondents do not intend to file any separate reply to the writ petition and the said office instructions be treated as the stand of the respondents in view of order dated 31.07.2025 passed in this writ petition. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 2(i). Petitioner is serving as Public Distribution Helper (Class-IV) in the respondent-H.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation. Respondents constituted a Committee of three officials on 08.04.2024 in relation to 3 2025:HHC:27462 alleged irregularities observed in supply of food grains distributed under the Public Distribution System at Wholesale Distribution Centre Dehra. Petitioner was posted as Public Distribution Helper (Class-IV) in Wholesale Godown of the respondents at Dehra at the relevant time. The Committee conducted an inspection of the Wholesale Distribution Centre Dehra on 10.04.2024 and furnished its report on 27.05.2024 (Annexure P-1). Relevant portion of English translation of the report (as supplied for the petitioner) is as under:- “The aforesaid committee examined the deposits recorded in the stock register, wherein Mr. Sanjeev Kumar has mentioned deposit through RTGS in stock register. In this context, letter No. HPSCSC/AMD/Show Cause Notice/2024-2025-776-779 dated 02.05.2024 was sent to the Branch Manager, HPSCSC, Dehra, seeking details of the deposits related to the Denies bills. The Branch Manager, Dehra, provided copies of the deposits, which show that the sale proceeds were deposited in cash in KCC Bank Dehra, Account No. 50050047050. Copy of the same is attached with the report. The committee found that the quantity mentioned in the Denies bills related to food grain sales was included in the subsidy bills and was signed by the Inspector, Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Dehra. Copies are attached with the report. Further, after issuance of the permits by the Inspector, Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Dehra, the food grains were issued by Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Public Distribution Helper, Dehra to depot holders. A copy of the permit is attached. After perusal of the statements of the depot holders (FPS/CAS), the committee found irregularities in the distribution of food grains distributed through Public Distribution System by Sanjeev Kumar-the Public Distribution Helper. 4 2025:HHC:27462 Hence, the above report is submitted for kind perusal and further necessary directions.” 2(ii). Subsequently, an office order was issued on 11.06.2024 (Annexure P-2) by the District Controller Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Kangra, ordering recovery of double the amount from the Area Manager, HPSCSC Limited Dharamshala as differential cost between the controlled price and the market price of the diverted specified articles, i.e. Rs.72,74,309/- to the Government Treasury for his lapses. Relevant portion of the aforesaid office order is as under:- “Therefore I, Purshotam Singh, Distt. Controller Food Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Kangra Distt. Kangra (H.P.) in exercise of powers conferred upon me under clause 8(2) of the H.P. Specified Essential Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 2019, do hereby order to recover the double amount from the above wholesaler i.e. Area Manager, HPSCSC Ltd Dharamshala, as differential cost between the controlled price and the market price of the diverted specified articles i.e. 7274309 (Rupees Seventy Two Lakh Seventy-Four Thousand Three Hundred and Nine only) to the Govt. Treasury for the above lapses/violations with immediate effect and order to deposit the recoverable amount at the earliest. In addition to it the said wholesaler is issued severe warning not to repeat the similar/any irregularity henceforth and be careful in future.” 2(iii). The concerned Area Manager, HPSCSC Limited preferred an Appeal, bearing No.7 of 2024, against the order dated 11.06.2024 before the Director-cum-Appellate Authority (Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs), 5 2025:HHC:27462 Himachal Pradesh. Petitioner was impleaded as respondent in the aforesaid appeal. The appeal was dismissed on 24.10.2024 (Annexure P-3). Further appeal preferred by the concerned Area Manager before the Appellate Authority- cum-Additional Chief Secretary (Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla was also dismissed on 15.03.2025 (Annexure P-4). 2(iv). The Executive Director of the respondent-State Civil Supplies Corporation issued an order on 28.04.2025 (Annexure P-5) for recovering penalty amount of Rs.72,74,309/- from the petitioner. Petitioner has taken recourse to legal remedy against the imposition of aforesaid penalty upon him by instituting CWP No.9065 of 2025, wherein, by order dated 30.05.2025, operation and execution of the said order has been stayed. 3. The case Petitioner’s present grievance as noticed in the order dated 31.07.2025 passed in this writ petition pertains to his continued suspension by the respondents. Facts in that regard are as under:- 3(i). Respondents placed the petitioner under suspension on 02.07.2024 (Annexure P-7) in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 10(1) of the Central Civil Services 6 2025:HHC:27462 (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (in short ‘CCS (CCA) Rules’) and under the applicable Service Bye- Laws governing its employees. As per order dated 02.07.2024, the respondents contemplated holding disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in view of allegations of serious financial irregularities and misappropriation related to stock and store reported against him. 3(ii). In view of Rule 10(6) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, the Suspension Review Committee of the respondents reviewed petitioner’s suspension and decided not to revoke it. Petitioner’s suspension was extended for further 180 days vide order dated 12.11.2024 (Annexure P-8). The same day, FIR No.8/2024 was also lodged against the petitioner by the State Vigilance & Anti Corruption Bureau at Dharamshala under Sections 409, 420, 465 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 3(iii). The memorandum of charges under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules was issued to the petitioner by the respondent-Corporation on 09.01.2025 (Annexure P-9). Petitioner has been alleged to have committed a grave misconduct by misusing his official position for his own 7 2025:HHC:27462 personal gain and causing financial loss to the Corporation to the extent of Rs.85,68,402/- by diverting/ misappropriating 1825.74 Quintals of food articles meant for ration card holders of the State in the open market. There is another article of charge leveled against the petitioner of remaining unauthorizedly absent from duties for about 172 days. 3(iv). The Suspension Review Committee reviewed the suspension of the petitioner and extended it for a further period of 180 days under Rule 10(6) of the CCS (CCA) Rules. Accordingly, vide order dated 09.05.2025 (Annexure P-11), petitioner’s suspension was extended. This period is still in force. 4. Petitioner raises grievance against his continued suspension. Learned counsel for the petitioner urges that the petitioner was a mere Class-IV employee and was not responsible for selling food articles meant for public distribution in open market. Responsibility for this act lay somewhere else. The higher authorities of the respondent- Corporation have already issued office order dated 11.06.2024 against the concerned Area Manager, who was responsible for diversion of the food articles. It is the Area Manager, who had also been directed to pay the differential 8 2025:HHC:27462 cost between the controlled price and the market price of the diverted specified articles, i.e. Rs.72,74,309/-. Two successive appeals preferred by the concerned Area Manager against the aforesaid order have been dismissed by the competent authorities. Despite this, neither any charge-sheet has been issued by the respondents to the concerned Area Manager or any other higher ranking official nor any FIR has been lodged against them. The petitioner, a Class-IV employee, has been made a scapegoat. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that though these defenses would be taken by the petitioner during the course of inquiry pursuant to the memorandum of charge-sheet now issued by the respondents against him, nonetheless, on the basis of facts, which have come on record, the petitioner, a low paid Class-IV employee, should not have been put under suspension. His suspension is required to be revoked. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 submitted that petitioner’s suspension had been reviewed by the Suspension Review Committee formed by the respondent-Corporation from time to time. FIR has been lodged against him on 12.11.2024 and memorandum of 9 2025:HHC:27462 charges stands already issued to him on 09.01.2025. Yet another memorandum of charges was issued to the petitioner under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules on 11.07.2025 for his alleged misappropriation of an amount of Rs.26,910/- pertaining to an incident of the year 2019. 5. Consideration 5(i). Suspension is governed by Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules. Portion of the Rule, relevant to the context, is extracted hereinafter:- “10. Suspension (1) The Appointing Authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or the Disciplinary Authority or any other authority empowered in that behalf by the President, by general or special order, may place a Government servant under suspension- (a) where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending; or (aa) where, in the opinion of the authority aforesaid, he has engaged himself in activities prejudicial to the interest of the security of the State; or (b) where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial: Provided that, except in case of an order of suspension made by the Comptroller and Auditor- General in regard to a member of the Indian Audit and Accounts Service and in regard to an Assistant Accountant-General or equivalent (other than a regular member of the Indian Audit and Accounts Service), where the order of suspension is made by an authority lower than the Appointing Authority, such authority shall forthwith report to the appointing authority the circumstances in which the order was made. (2) A Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by an order of Appointing Authority- 10 2025:HHC:27462 (a) with effect from the date of his detention, if he is detained in custody, whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period exceeding forty-eight hours; (b) with effect from the date of his conviction, if, in the event of a conviction for an offence, he is sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding forty-eight hours and is not forthwith dismissed or removed or compulsorily retired consequent to such conviction. (3) to (5) xxx xxx xxx (6) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule shall be reviewed by the authority competent to modify or revoke the suspension, before expiry of ninety days from the effective date of suspension, on the recommendation of the Review Committee constituted for the purpose and pass orders either extending or revoking the suspension. Subsequent reviews shall be made before expiry of the extended period of suspension. Extension of suspension shall not be for a period exceeding one hundred and eighty days at a time.” Admittedly, petitioner was suspended on 02.07.2024. His suspension has been reviewed by the Suspension Review Committee from time to time in terms of Rule 10(6) of the CCS (CCA) Rules. The petitioner, a Class-IV employee, is continuing under suspension w.e.f. 02.07.2024. 5(ii). Hon’ble Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary Versus Union of India and another2 reiterated that suspension of an employee is injurious to his interests and must not be continued for an unreasonably long period. An 2 (2015) 7 SCC 291 11 2025:HHC:27462 order of suspension should not be passed lightly. Suspension, specially preceding formulation of charges, is essentially transitory or temporary in nature and must perforce be of short duration. If it is for an indeterminate period or if its renewal is not based upon sound reasoning contemporaneously available on record, this would render it punitive in nature. Departmental/disciplinary proceedings invariably commence with delay, are plagued with procrastination prior and post the drawing up of the memorandum of charges and eventually culminate after even longer delay. Hon’ble Apex Court lamented protracted periods of suspension and repeated renewals thereof. Relevant paras from the decision are as under:- “8. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, however, has rightly relied on a series of judgments of this Court, including O.P. Gupta v. Union of India3, where this Court has enunciated that the suspension of an employee is injurious to his interests and must not be continued for an unreasonably long period; that, therefore, an order of suspension should not be lightly passed. 9. Our attention has also been drawn to K. Sukhendar Reddy v. State of A.P.4, which is topical in that it castigates selective suspension perpetuated indefinitely in circumstances where other involved persons had not been subjected to any scrutiny. Reliance on this decision is in the backdrop of the admitted facts that all the persons who have been privy to the making of the office notes have not been proceeded against departmentally. 3 (1987) 4 SCC 328 4 (1999) 6 SCC 257 12 2025:HHC:27462 10. So far as the question of prejudicial treatment accorded to an employee is concerned, this Court in State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan5 has observed that it would be fair to make this assumption of prejudice if there is an unexplained delay in the conclusion of proceedings. However, the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Dipak Mali6 does not come to the succour of the appellant since our inspection of the records produced in original have established that firstly, the decision to continue the suspension was carried out within the then prevailing period and secondly, that it was duly supported by elaborate reasoning. 11. Suspension, specially preceding the formulation of charges, is essentially transitory or temporary in nature, and must perforce be of short duration. If it is for an indeterminate period or if its renewal is not based on sound reasoning contemporaneously available on the record, this would render it punitive in nature. Departmental/disciplinary proceedings invariably commence with delay, are plagued with procrastination prior and post the drawing up of the memorandum of charges, and eventually culminate after even longer delay. 12. Protracted periods of suspension, repeated renewal thereof, have regrettably become the norm and not the exception that they ought to be. The suspended person suffering the ignominy of insinuations, the scorn of society and the derision of his department, has to endure this excruciation even before he is formally charged with some misdemeanour, indiscretion or offence. His torment is his knowledge that if and when charged, it will inexorably take an inordinate time for the inquisition or inquiry to come to its culmination, that is, to determine his innocence or iniquity. Much too often this has now become an accompaniment to retirement. Indubitably, the sophist will nimbly counter that our Constitution does not explicitly guarantee either the right to a speedy trial even to the incarcerated, or assume the presumption of innocence to the accused. But we must remember that both these factors are legal ground norms, are inextricable tenets of Common Law Jurisprudence, antedating even the Magna Carta of 1215, which assures that – “We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either justice or right." 5 (1998) 4 SCC 154 6 (2010) 2 SCC 222 13 2025:HHC:27462 In similar vein the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America guarantees that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.” The above decision was followed in State of Tamil Nadu Versus Promod Kumar, IPS and another7 and the continued suspension of the respondent therein was interfered with as under:- “27. This Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India8 has frowned upon the practice of protracted suspension and held that suspension must necessarily be for a short duration. On the basis of the material on record, we are convinced that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the first respondent under suspension any longer and that his reinstatement would not be a threat to a fair trial. We reiterate the observation of the High Court that the appellant State has the liberty to appoint the first respondent in a non- sensitive post.” While passing order on 23.01.2025 in Civil Appeal No.10856/2016 (Bhupinder Singh Versus Unitech Ltd. & Ors.), Hon’ble Apex Court taking cognizance of the fact that suspended officials were receiving 75% of the pay without performing any work, made following observations:- “12. There can hardly be any dispute that on expiry of six months period of suspension, ordinarily a Government official would become entitled to subsistence allowance at the rate of 75% of the pay, save and except when such subsistence allowance has to be denied for some valid reasons. We, thus, proceed on a premise that most 7 (2018) 17 SCC 677 8 (2015) 7 SCC 291 14 2025:HHC:27462 of the suspended officers/officials are now receiving 75% pay without having to perform any work. Additionally, considering charge sheets have been issued very recently in October, 2024, we can safely infer that the conclusion of the departmental proceedings will take some reasonable time. Similarly, the criminal proceedings, pending against the suspended officials, are also not likely to reach to a logical conclusion within a short time. 13. That being so, it seems that the directions contained in paragraph 2 of the order dated 06.10.2021, if allowed to operate indefinitely, will be prejudicial to the State Exchequer and will hardly serve any purpose, until and unless the Competent Authority is of the considered opinion that the reinstatement of an official is likely to cause impediment in conducting a fair and impartial enquiry. 14. Consequently, we recall the directions contained in paragraph 2 of the order dated 06.10.2021 and leave it entirely to the discretion of the Competent Authority to examine all the cases of officers/officials, who are under suspension, pursuant to our above stated direction, and take an appropriate decision as to whether they should be reinstated or not. It goes without saying that if the Competent Authority finds that the reinstatement of any official will not be an impediment or obstruction in continuation of the Departmental proceedings, such an official can be reinstated without prejudice to the outcome of the Departmental action.” 5(iii). Reverting to the facts of the case, it is not the defence of the respondents that reinstatement of the petitioner or revocation of his suspension will cause any prejudice to the respondents or to the departmental proceedings initiated against him. Petitioner was placed under suspension on 02.07.2024 in contemplation of initiating disciplinary proceedings against him. Memorandum of charge-sheet was issued to him almost six 15 2025:HHC:27462 months later, i.e. on 09.01.2025. Petitioner still continues to be under suspension. It is evident that conclusion of departmental proceedings will take long time. Continuing to keep the petitioner-a Class-IV employee under suspension for that reason, in the given facts, may not be justified, more particularly, in the face of Committee’s report dated 27.05.2024, the office order dated 11.06.2024 and the orders passed by the competent authorities in two successive appeals against the order dated 11.06.2024, whereunder, penalty has been imposed upon the concerned Area Manager and affirmed by the appellate authorities. In view of above, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to take a fresh call for revocation of petitioner’s suspension and his reinstatement in service in accordance with law & also keeping in view the observations made in this judgment. Fresh order be passed within a period of three weeks from today. Copy of the order so passed, be also communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua August 14, 2025 Judge Mukesh