IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.7201 of 2025 Decided on 19th May 2026 Shri Gaurav Gaur Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the petitioners: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dogra, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That impugned punishment order dated 18.07.2024 (Annexure P-16) passed by the respondent No.2-Disciplinary Authority imposing upon the petitioner major penalty of removal from service" & further, order dated 18.11.2024 passed by the respondent No.1-learned Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner may kindly be quashed & set-aside being arbitrary, illegal, non-speaking, unreasoned and violative of the principles of natural Registrar Justice, rules and law of the land and that too, in 2 light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Mahavir Prasad Vs. State of U.P. (AIR 1970 SC 1302); by issuing writ of Certiorari & justice be done. (ii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits including full back salary alongwith interest @ 9% per annum, seniority and promotion etc., and justice be done.” 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was initially engaged as Panchayat Veterinary Assistant on 14.02.2013. Thereafter, he was appointed as a Veterinary Pharmacist on contract basis on 15.09.2017 and his services were regularized as such in the month of October, 2020. On 03.06.2023, the petitioner was placed under suspension, which was subsequently revoked and a Memo was issued to him that the Disciplinary Authority intended to carry out disciplinary proceedings against him qua his 12th standard certificate, which was submitted by him while obtaining the employment, which was a fake certificate. 3. To cut the controversy short, in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, Inquiry Officer was appointed and the Inquiry Officer submitted his inquiry report, copy whereof is appended with the petition as Annexure P-15. 3 The Inquiry Officer returned the following findings on the Article of charges which were framed against the petitioner: “Article -1- That said Shri Gaurav Gaur, Veterinary Pharmacist, has produced a fake certificate of class 10+2 (12th Standard) vide Sr. No. 062313 Roll No.06002463215-year April, 2007 of National Institute of Open Schooling New Delhi at the time of initial appointment as Veterinary Pharmacist on contract basis. The facts were verified and it was established that the aforesaid certificate was not found in the record of NIOS New Delhi. FINDINGS- Certificate with this roll number has been issued to Shri Dil Kumar which can be seen on line in website of NIOS. Vide letter no. VD-Trilokpur-25 dated 12-04-2021 Shri Gaurav Gaur informed DD AH/B Nahan that NIOS, New Delhi has informed him that his roll no. is 961202463215 which is exhibited on his name in the NIOS website and the CO assured that the said certificate will be submitted to the office as and when it is received by him. Thus, CO committed /repeated fraud by giving a new roll no. of his 10+2 certificate to the DDAH /B Sirmour at Nahan which was again declared totally fake by NIOS vide their letter dated 02-11-2022. No written communication with NIOS was made available by the CO to substantiate his claim. NIOS Officer in charge (M&B) vide his letter no.F.7- 1042022/NIOS/EVAL/M&B/Fake Cert./859 dated 19-10-2022 written to Joint Director (Hqtr), (Inquiry Officer) Directorate of Animal Husbandry informed that certificate of Shri Gaurav Gaur Roll No. 06002463215 does not match with their database and is not genuine. Matter of fake certificate was detected by DDAH/B Sirmour at Nahan and Shri Gaurav was repeatedly asked to clarify his stand and to provide original copy of his 10+2 certificate but in spite of providing maximum possible opportunities to the CO, Shri Gaurav Gaur neither replied to any letter nor submitted original 4 certificate of his 10+2. Also, during examination of Shri Gaurav Gaur on 226-02-2024 he could not reply to any query put by PO and even after giving repeated opportunities by the 10 he could not produce any document to prove the authenticity of his 10+2 certificate. Defence Assistant though appeared for the first time before 10 on dated 20- 03-2024 did not attend hearings and left the proceedings along with CO therefore his version could not be analyzed/recorded. Based upon above facts the charges framed against Shri Gaurav Gaur vide Article 1 of Annexure I and Annexure -II stands proved. Also, investigation of case registered in Police Station Kala Amb vide No.15/2023 dated 30-01-2023 U/S 420 IPC needs to be expedited so as to substantiate the findings of the inquiry. ARTICLE -II- That the said Gaurav Gaur, Veterinary Pharmacist used a fake certificate mentioned in article -I for undergoing two-year Veterinary Pharmacist Diploma Course from CSK HPKV Palampur (H.P.) and further on the basis of the above course he got the benefit of appointment as Veterinary Pharmacist. FINDINGS- Consequent upon finding that 10+2 (12th Standard) certificate of Shri Gaurav Gaur S.No, 062313, Roll No.06002463215 has been proved to be fake the Article-II of Annexure I and Annexure II stands automatically proved as basic qualification for admission 10 Veterinary Pharmacist Training Course is 10+2 and the CO used a fake certificate for undergoing two year Veterinary Pharmacist Diploma Course from CSK HPKVV Palampur H.P. and on the basis of above course he got the benefit of appointment as Veterinary Pharmacist. ARTICLE-III- That Shri Gaurav Gaur, Veterinary Pharmacist got the financial benefit by using fake certificate as mentioned in article -I and article-II. The acts by Shri Gaurav Gaur, Veterinary Pharmacist has resulted in loss to public exchequer. 5 FINDINGS- Consequent upon finding that 10+2 (12th Standard) certificate of Shri Gaurav Gaur S.No.062313, Roll No.06002463215 has been proved to be fake the Article-III of Annexure-I and Annexure-II that Shri Gaurav Gaur, Veterinary Pharmacist during service period from 29.07.2017 to till date concealed the fact of having obtained a fake certificate of 10+2 on basis of which he undertook training of Veterinary Pharmacist and thereafter secured job for which he was not eligible, hence caused loss to public exchequer stands automatically proved.” 4. Thereafter, when the inquiry report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer to the Disciplinary Authority, copy thereof was forwarded by the Disciplinary Authority to the petitioner, an opportunity was granted to him to file a representation thereto, in terms of the provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules. However, no representation was filed by the petitioner against the inquiry report and, accordingly, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of removal from service in terms of order dated 18.07.2024 Annexure P-16. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority, in terms of Annexure P-19, Page-91 and, hence the petition. 6 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority are no orders in the eyes of law for the reason that both are non-speaking orders. He submitted that no reasoning was given in the orders by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority as to why the imposition of the penalty to remove the petitioner from Government service has been imposed upon him and further it was not appreciated that the inquiry was not held fairly by the Inquiry Officer by providing opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence and place record documents, which he intended to place. No other point was urged. 6. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that there is no merit in the present writ petition. He submitted that the report of the Inquiry Officer clearly demonstrated that the petitioner had submitted a forged +2 certificate to gain employment. He submitted that the record proved that the roll number under which the petitioner purportedly appeared in the +2 examination was not allotted to him, but was allotted to one Sh. Dil Kumar and thus, the 7 certificate furnished by the petitioner to the employer at the time of his employment was a forged one. He submitted that when the Inquiry Officer submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority and opportunity was granted to the petitioner to file representation against the same, nothing prevented the petitioner from filing a representation against the report of the Inquiry Officer and mentioning therein what was being urged before the Court. He submitted in the absence of any representation being filed against the inquiry report, obviously, the presumption was that the petitioner had nothing to say against the inquiry report and, therefore, in the light of the fact that the inquiry report indicted the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority, rightly imposed the penalty of removal from service upon him, taking into consideration the inquiry report which established that the conduct of the petitioner was unbecoming of a Government Servant. Learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that as the Appellate Authority concurred with the findings returned by the Disciplinary Authority, therefore, there was no occasion for the Appellate Authority also to pass a ‘detailed order’ which the petitioner 8 wanted the authorities to pass. He submitted that though the order passed by the Appellate Authority was a short order, but still it is a reasoned order. 7. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 referred to the reply filed by the said respondent and also to Annexure R-3/4 appended therewith and submitted that the petitioner had never appeared as a candidate in the said School nor any certificate of +2 was issued to him and the Roll Number of the certificate which the petitioner submitted with the employer was in fact given to one Dil Kumar and thus the certificate which was submitted by the petitioner was a forged one. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through record as well as the documents on record. 9. The articles of charges which were framed against the petitioner were primarily to the effect that the petitioner had produced a fake certificate of 10+2 (12th standard) vide serial No.062313, Roll Number 06002463215, year April, 2007 of National Institute of Open Schooling New Delhi, at the time of 9 initial appointment as Veterinary Pharmacist on contract basis and on verification, it was found that the certificate was not in the record of NOIS New Delhi. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated, as the act of the official was found to be unbecoming of a Government Servant. In the departmental inquiry which was initiated against the petitioner, the inquiry report filed by the Inquiry Officer indicted the petitioner and the findings returned by the Inquiry Officer were to the effect that the certificate furnished by the petitioner was indeed a forged certificate. 10. A perusal of the inquiry report demonstrates that the petitioner was duly associated with the inquiry report and he was also give an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of the department. The findings which were returned by the Inquiry Officer qua the Article of charges, which were framed against the petitioner, have already been quoted by me hereinabove. 11. In terms of Rule 15(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules after the Disciplinary Authority receives the inquiry report and where the Disciplinary Authority itself is not the Inquiry Officer, it has to forward the report of the Inquiry Officer to the delinquent, 10 calling upon him to submit his written representation or submissions to the Disciplinary Authority within 15 days, irrespective of whether the report is favourable or not to the Government Servant. 12. In the present case, after receipt of the inquiry report, this procedure was duly followed by the Disciplinary Authority. Yet, the petitioner chose not to file any written representation or submissions to the Disciplinary Authority against the report of the Inquiry Officer. 13. That being the case, now obviously, the appreciation of report of the Inquiry Officer was an exercise to be undertaken by the Disciplinary Authority on the basis of the record before it, without there being any representation against the same by the Government servant. 14. This is exactly what was done by the Disciplinary Authority in terms of order dated 18.07.2024 (Annexure P-16). The Disciplinary Authority after recording that no representation was received from the petitioner against the report of the Inquiry Officer, returned the findings that it had perused the inquiry report conducted in the case as per CCS (CCA) Rules 11 thoroughly, wherein, it stood established that the conduct of the petitioner tantamount to unbecoming of a Government servant and the gravity of the charge warranted imposition of major penalty. 15. On these basis, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of removal from service upon the petitioner. As the Disciplinary Authority was not disagreeing with the inquiry report, obviously, while upholding the inquiry report, it passed the order of imposition of penalty of removal from service upon the petitioner and the necessary explanation which was required to be there in the order is therein. It is not the case of the petitioner that findings returned by the Disciplinary Authority were contrary to the findings returned in the inquiry report. 16. Similarly, the order passed by the Appellate Authority upheld the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the reasons why it upheld the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority are categorically spelled out therein. The grounds of appeal which are appended with the petition demonstrate that in terms thereof, the attack by the petitioner was not so much to the order passed by the Disciplinary 12 Authority, but the inquiry report. This Court is of the considered view that once the petitioner missed the opportunity of not filing a representation against the inquiry report when he was called upon to do so under the provisions of Rule 15(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, in the garb of appeal, he could not have done so. The appeal was to be confined only to the reasoning given in the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. 17. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the orders passed by the Appellate Authority and Disciplinary Authority are not reasoned orders also does not impress the Court for the reason that when it stood established that the petitioner had gained employment on the basis of a fake certificate of +2 and when the authorities were agreeing with the findings returned by the Inquiry Officer, there was no need for the authorities to have had passed detailed orders running into pages and pages, as was suggested on behalf of the petitioner. 18. It is not the length of the order but the gist thereof and the reasoning contained therein, which has to satisfy the judicial conscience of this Court. 13 19. Herein, the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority satisfy the judicial conscience of the Court that there is no infirmity in the said orders and in light of the fact that in the inquiry proceedings, it stood established that the petitioner had gained employment on the strength of a fake certificate, which fact was also substantiated by the stand taken even before this Court by respondent No.3, which is the institute from which the petitioner had purportedly obtained the certificate, as this Court does find any merit in the petition, the same is dismissed, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 19, 2026 (Vinod)