1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No.758 of 2025 Decided on : 17.06.2026 Uploaded on: 19.06..2026 Managing Director, Himachal Pradesh State Forest Development Corporation Limited and others …… Appellants Versus Onkar Singh …… Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 {{ For the Appellants : Mr. Vijay Arora, Senior Advocate with Mr. Hitansh Raj and Ms. Astha Kohli, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Amit Singh Chandel, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. P.P. Singh, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.2/State. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge By way of the present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment dated 19.05.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWPOA No.934 of 2019, titled Onkar Singh vs. State of H.P. and Ors., whereby the writ petition filed by the present respondent has 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 been allowed and Office Order dated 31.03.2004 (Annexure A-15 filed with the writ petition), ordering removal of the respondent from the service, has been quashed and Office Order dated 04.04.2004 issued in sequel to Office Order dated 31.03.2004, has also been quashed. 2. A complaint with respect to sexual harassment at the workplace was filed by one Smt. Jeet Kumari against the present respondent. The complaint so made was entrusted to the Complaints Committee vide UO No.Estt/D/W-Part File-2608 dated 03.05.2003 for further necessary proceedings. In pursuance thereto the Complaints Committee held its proceedings on 28.07.2003, 13.08.2003 and 03.09.2003. On none of the aforesaid dates, the respondent was present before the Complaints Committee. Statement of the complainant, i.e. Smt. Jeet Kumari was recorded on 13.08.2003. Post conclusion of the inquiry, the Complaints Committee returned a finding in its inquiry report dated 13.10.2003 (Page-198 of the paper book) that the respondent had committed acts of sexual harassment at the workplace with respect to complainant Smt. Jeet Kumari. 3. Subsequent thereto, vide Office Order dated 23.12.2003 (Page 115 of the paper book), appellant No.1 called upon the respondent to show cause, as to why, stringent action be not taken against him, on the basis of the findings of guilt returned by the Complaints Committee in its inquiry report dated 13.10.2003. 3 4. From a perusal of the Office Order dated 23.12.2003, it is evident that the inquiry report which formed the basis for the said Office Order, was never supplied to the respondent. A detailed reply to the Office Order was filed by the respondent (Page 117 of the paper book). On a consideration of the reply, appellant No.1 concluded that the respondent was not informed of the dates of hearing before the Complaints Committee i.e 28.07.2003, 14.08.2003 and 03.09.2003. The same is evident from the Office Order dated 14.01.2004 (Page- 126 of the paper book). 5. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, appellant No.1 afforded an opportunity to the respondent to present his case before the Complaints Committee along with documents and witnesses that the respondent wanted to produce. The next date before the Complaints Committee was fixed for 09.02.2004 at Shimla. 6. Thereafter, on 29.01.2004, prior to the date fixed for the appearance of the respondent before the Complaints Committee, i.e 09.02.2004, the respondent submitted a list of witnesses in support of his contention to the Chairman of the Complaints Committee. (The said letter has been placed at Page-127 of the paper book). On 09.02.2004, the respondent appeared before the Complaints Committee and submitted his written brief. The Complaints Committee posed certain questions to the respondent on 09.02.2004. Based on the written brief 4 and the answers made by the respondent to the questions posed by the members of the Committee, the Complaints Committee vide its inquiry report dated 12.03.2004 (Pages-204/205 of the paper book) came to the conclusion that the previous inquiry report dated 13.10.2003 is final and conclusive in view of the facts placed before the Complaints Committee. The Complaints Committee further recommended that the Disciplinary Authority should take stringent action against the respondent. Based on the inquiry report dated 12.03.2004, appellant No.1 vide Office Order dated 31.03.2004 imposed the penalty of removal from service upon the respondent. In pursuance whereto Office Order dated 04.04.2004 was issued by the Director (South) Shimla/appellant No.2 ordering removal of the respondent from the service w.e.f. 31.03.2004. 7. In the aforesaid backdrop, the first and foremost contention raised on behalf of the appellants is that the inquiry report submitted by the Complaints Committee would be deemed to be an inquiry report under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The findings and the report shall not be treated as a mere preliminary investigation or inquiry leading to a disciplinary action, but shall be treated as a finding/report in an inquiry into the mis-conduct of the delinquent. 8. In this context, reference has been placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Medha Kotwal Lele and Others 5 vs. Union of India and others, (2013) 1 SCC 297. The relevant extract, whereupon reliance has been placed, is being reproduced here-in-below:- “6. In one of these matters, Medha Kotwal Lele, this Court has passed certain orders from time to time. Notices were issued to all the State Governments. The States have filed their responses. On 26.4.2004, after hearing the learned Attorney General and learned counsel for the States, this Court directed as follows : (SCC p.311, para 2) “2. … Complaints Committee as envisaged by the Supreme Court in its judgment in Vishaka’s case will be deemed to be an inquiry authority for the purposes of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter called CCS Rules) and the report of the complaints Committee shall be deemed to be an inquiry report under the CCS Rules. Thereafter the disciplinary authority will act on the report in accordance with the rules.” This Court further directed in the order dated 26.4.2004 that similar amendment shall be carried out in the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules. As regards educational institutions and other establishments, the Court observed that further directions would be issued subsequently.” 44.1. The States and Union Territories which have not yet carried out adequate and appropriate amendments in their respective Civil Services Conduct Rules (by whatever name these Rules are called) shall do so within two months from today by providing that the report of the 6 Complaints Committee shall be deemed to be an inquiry report in a disciplinary action under such Civil Services Conduct Rules. In other words, the disciplinary authority shall treat the report/findings, etc. of the Complaints Committee as the findings in a disciplinary inquiry against the delinquent employee and shall act on such report accordingly. The findings and the report of the Complaints Committee shall not be treated as a mere preliminary investigation or inquiry leading to a disciplinary action but shall be treated as a finding/report in an inquiry into the misconduct of the delinquent.” 9. Last but not least, it has been contended on behalf of the appellants that the learned Single Judge, after quashing the orders pertaining to removal of the respondent from service, in the facts and circumstances of the case, should not have re-instated the respondent with all consequential benefits. 10. Insofar as the first contention is concerned, as has already been stated (supra), the Complaints Committee, in pursuance to the complaint made against the respondent qua sexual harassment at the workplace, convened its meetings on three dates, i.e., 28.07.2003, 13.08.2003 and 03.09.2003. The same resulted in an inquiry report dated 13.10.2003 (inquiry report is at Page-198 of the paper book). Suffice it to state that in pursuance to the aforesaid inquiry report dated 13.10.2003, vide Office Order dated 23.12.2003 (Page-115 of the paper book), a show cause notice was issued to the respondent. In 7 pursuance thereto, the respondent had filed a detailed reply (reply is at Page 117 of the paper book). After considering the reply, appellant No.1 vide Office Order dated 14.01.2004 (Page-126 of the paper book) categorically concluded that insofar as the proceedings before the Complaints Committee, on 28.08.2003, 13.08.2003 and 03.09.2003, were concerned, the respondent had no intimation of the same. Hence, an opportunity was afforded to the respondent to present his case before the Complaints Committee, on 09.02.2004. 11. On 09.02.2004, when the respondent appeared before the Complaints Committee, he was permitted to submit his written statement and a few questions were put to the respondent by the members of the Complaints Committee. Thereafter proceedings were concluded by the Complaints Committee and in its inquiry report dated 12.03.2004 (placed at Page 204/205 of the paper book), previous inquiry dated 13.10.2003 was held to be final and conclusive, wherein, as has already been stated (supra), admittedly the respondent had not participated. 12. Before the Complaints Committee, statement of the complainant, i.e. Smt. Jeet Kumari was recorded on 13.08.2003. The statement so made was admittedly made in the absence of the respondent. The same was never tested by any cross-examination, 8 nor an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant was ever afforded to the respondent. 13. Since in view of the law laid down by the apex court in Medha Kotwal Lele cited supra, the inquiry report prepared by the Complaints Committee is to be treated as a finding/report in an inquiry into the mis-conduct of the delinquent and not a mere preliminary investigation or inquiry leading to a disciplinary action, therefore, a scrupulous adherence to principles of natural justice was required which as has been demonstrated supra was observed more in its breach rather than in its observance. In this respect the learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition, has correctly placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, in Aureliano Fernades vs. State of Goa and Ors., (2024) 1 SCC 632, wherein applicability of rules of natural justice in a case like the one at hand, has been highlighted in the following terms; “the audi alteram partem rule, in its fullest amplitude means that a person against whom an order to his prejudice may be passed should be informed of the allegations and charges against him, be given an opportunity of submitting his explanation thereto, have the right to know the evidence, both oral or documentary, by which the matter is proposed to be decided against him, and to inspect the documents which are relied upon for the purpose of being used against him, to have the witnesses who are to give evidence against him examined in his presence and have the right to cross-examine them, and to lead his own evidence, both oral and documentary, in his defence.” 9 14. Yet, another aspect is that on similar charges, for which the respondent was being tried by the Complaints Committee, disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the respondent. The same is evident from the Articles of charge framed against the respondent in the disciplinary proceedings, specifically Article of charge No.2 (Page 93 of the paper book). The Charge-sheet had been framed against the respondent on 02.05.2003 in the disciplinary proceedings. The respondent had been suspended on 21.06.2003. In the disciplinary proceedings the respondent was participating as is evident from the reply filed (Page 117 of the paper book) to the Office Order dated 23.12.2003 (Page 115 of the paper book). However, disciplinary proceedings were closed vide Office Order dated 24.09.2004 (Page- 169/170 of the paper book) on account of the removal of respondent from service, in pursuance to the action taken by the Complaints Committee, vide its inquiry report dated 12.03.2004, in pursuance whereof, vide Office Order dated 04.04.2004, appellant No.2-Director (South), Shimla, had ordered removal of the respondent from service w.e.f. 31.03.2004. The disciplinary proceedings in the case at hand were never taken to a logical end/conclusion. 15. The contention of the appellants qua denial of the consequential benefits post quashing of the order of removal of the respondent from service, cannot be accepted in view of the law laid 10 down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, (1991) 4 SCC 109 : “25. ……………………..The normal rule of “no work no pay” is not applicable to cases such as the present one where the employee although he is willing to work is kept away from work by the authorities for no fault of his. This is not a case where the employee remains away from work for his own reasons, although the work is offered to him.” 16. From the aforesaid it is evident that in its anxiety of being fair to the victim/complainant and wrap up the complaint expeditiously, the Committee has ended up being grossly unfair to the respondent. It has completely overlooked the cardinal principle that justice must not only be done, but should manifestly be seen to be done. The principles of audi alteram partem have been thrown to the winds in a cavalier manner. Hence for the reasons stated supra, in addition to the reasons mentioned in the judgment under challenge, there is no merit in the present appeal. The same is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) ( Bipin Chander Negi ) Chief Justice Judge June 17, 2026 (ks)