2025:HHC:36706 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.3168 of 2023 Decided on: 03.11.2025 _________________________________________________________________ Kashmir Chand ....Petitioner Versus HRTC and Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Sameer Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms.Shubh Mahajan, Advocate. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge The case (i) Petitioner was appointed as Conductor in the respondent-Himachal Road Transport Corporation (HRTC) on daily wage basis. His services were regularized w.e.f. 01.08.1983. A memorandum of charge-sheet containing four articles of charges was issued to the petitioner by the respondents under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) [CCS(CCA)] Rules, 1965 on 23.02.1993. The Inquiry Officer was appointed, who in 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2025:HHC:36706 - 2 - his inquiry report concluded that though Charge No.2 was established, but Charges No.1,3 and 4 were not proved. (ii) The disciplinary authority, Divisional Manager, HRTC-Respondent No.2 vide memorandum, dated 12.08.1996, disagreed with the inquiry report and recorded the finding that all the charges were established against the petitioner. Vide order dated 17.04.1998, major penalty of compulsory retirement under Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA), Rules was imposed upon the petitioner. Petitioner’s appeal against the penalty imposed him was rejected on 05.09.1998. (iii) Feeling aggrieved, petitioner instituted Original Application No.1843 of 2000 before the erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal. The said petition was dismissed on 22.02.2010 as CWP (T) No.6696 of 2008. Petitioner challenged this decision in Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) No.62 of 2010. The LPA was allowed on 19.06.2014 as under:- “17 Adverting to the facts of the present case, admittedly, the Inquiry Officer, after coming to the conclusion that Charges No.1, 3 and 4 were not proved and that only charge No.2 was proved, submitted the inquiry report to respondent No.2/Divisional Manager, who, vide Memorandum dated 12t August, 1996, (Annexure A-4) disagreed with the inquiry report and recorded the finding that major penalty deserves to be imposed upon the writ petitioner/appellant, which is against the principles laid 2025:HHC:36706 - 3 - down by the Apex Court. It was incumbent upon the Disciplinary Authority to record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent official an opportunity to represent before recording its findings, which has not been done in the case of the writ petitioner. 18. Having said so, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and consequently, the Memorandum dated 12th August, 1996, Annexure A-4, vide which the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the Inquiry report, and the order of compulsory retirement, dated 17th April, 1998 (Annexure A- 6), made by respondent No.2, are also liable to be quashed. Ordered accordingly. However, the respondents are at liberty to proceed with the inquiry against the writ petitioner/appellant on the basis of the inquiry report Annexure A-3, already submitted by the Inquiry Officer and if they choose so, the period from the date of compulsory retirement till today shall remain subject to the outcome of the inquiry. It is also made clear that if the respondents choose not to proceed with the inquiry, in that eventuality, the petitioner is held not entitled to back wages from the date of his compulsory retirement till today, but the said period shall be computed only for all other service benefits.” (iv) While allowing the appeal, the Hon’ble Division Bench quashed and set aside the order dated 12.08.1996 passed by the disciplinary authority as also the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed upon the petitioner under order dated 17.04.1998. The respondents, however, were granted liberty to proceed with the inquiry against the petitioner, on the basis of inquiry report furnished by the Inquiry Officer with the rider that in case this course was 2025:HHC:36706 - 4 - adopted by them, the period from the date of petitioner’s compulsory retirement would abide by the outcome of the inquiry. There was another option provided to the respondents that in the eventuality of their not proceeding with the inquiry, petitioner will not be paid back wages from the date of his compulsory retirement till the decision of the LPA, but the said period was to be computed for all other service benefits. 2. It is an admitted position that subsequent to the judgment dated 19.06.2014 passed in LPA No.62 of 2010, respondents proceeded with the inquiry against the petitioner. In fact, Annexure P-3 is the inquiry report submitted by a new Inquiry Officer in the matter, who was appointed after the decision in the LPA, wherein Inquiry Officer held that Charges No.1, 3 and 4 against the petitioner were not established and only charge No.2 was proved. Based upon this inquiry report (Annexure P-3), the respondents passed an office order on 01.08.2015 (Annexure P-4), holding as under qua the petitioner:- “1. He is Exonerated of the charges levelled against him vide charge sheet No.10350 dated 23.2.1993. 2. He is re-instated into service from the date of his joining at Dharamsala Unit. 2025:HHC:36706 - 5 - 3. His compulsory retirement pension ceased forthwith and matter be taken up with higher authority of HRTC immediately for recovery of pensionary benefits. 4. The suspension period we.f. 28.1.1993 to 23.12.1993 will be treated as duty for all intents and purposes. 5. His pay notionally fixed from the date of compulsory retirement w.e.f. 17.4.98 till his joining but no back wages/arrear will be paid and this period will count for notional increments and pensionary benefits.” Petitioner’s present grievance stems from above extracted Sr. No.5 of the office order dated 01.08.2015, whereby back wages/arrears have been denied to him for the period for which he remained under compulsory retirement. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the respondents had exonerated the petitioner from the charges levelled against him in the memorandum of charges dated 23.02.1993 and as a consequence whereof, the petitioner had been ordered to be reinstated into service, he was entitled for back wages/arrears w.e.f. the date of his compulsory retirement i.e. 17.04.1998 onwards till his reinstatement. The respondents in office order dated 01.08.2015 in view of exoneration of petitioner though have ordered to recover the pensionary benefits paid to the petitioner consequent upon penalty of compulsory retirement 2025:HHC:36706 - 6 - previously imposed upon him on 17.04.1998, but have omitted to pay him the consequential benefits on account of his exoneration from the Charges under the said order dated 01.08.2015. As a consequence of above order dated 01.08.2015, petitioner was reinstated in service. He retired on 30.09.2015 on attaining the age of superannuation. Despite his exoneration from the charges, he has not been paid emoluments for the period he was compulsorily kept away from duties by the respondents on account of penalty of compulsory retirement imposed upon his previously, whereas, on the other hand, respondents have ordered to recover the benefits received by the petitioner under penalty of compulsory retirement and sought to recover the same from his retiral benefits viz Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity etc. Prayer was made to quash direction No. 5 of the order dated 01.08.2015 and to direct the respondents to pay emoluments to the petitioner as a consequence of his exoneration. Learned counsel for the respondent-HRTC highlighted the pleaded stand of the respondents that respondents had not chosen to proceed ahead with the inquiry, therefore, in light of the judgment dated 19.06.2014 2025:HHC:36706 - 7 - rendered in LPA No.62 of 2010, the petitioner was not entitled for any back wages. For this reasons the respondents had justly withheld an amount of Rs.4,75,697/- on account of DCRG due and admissible to the petitioner offsetting it against the sum of Rs.7,81,607/- due from the petitioner and paid to him for the period of his compulsory retirement. 4. Consideration Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the case file, it has to be held that the respondents have totally misinterpreted the decision rendered on 19.06.2014 in LPA No.62 of 2010. While allowing the aforesaid appeal, the Hon’ble Division Bench had given two options to the respondents i.e. either to proceed ahead with the inquiry against the petitioner or not to proceed with the inquiry. In the first scenario, the period from the date of petitioner’s compulsory retirement was to remain subject to the outcome of the inquiry and in the second scenario, the petitioner would have been reinstated in service, but without back wages. It is an admitted position that respondents proceeded with the inquiry, which fact is otherwise writ large from perusal of inquiry report (Annexure P-2) submitted by 2025:HHC:36706 - 8 - the second Inquiry Officer post decision of the LPA. This inquiry report was taken to logical conclusion by the respondents and vide office order dated 01.08.2015, petitioner was exonerated from all the charges levelled against him. That being the position, the respondents having resorted to first option, cannot be permitted now to take shelter of the second option for denying the back wages/ arrears to the petitioner for the period during which, he was kept away from work on account of penalty of compulsory retirement previously imposed upon him under order dated 17.04.1998. The respondents were required to pass fresh order in accordance with law regarding back wages/arrears admissible to the petitioner for the period during which he was not permitted to discharge duties on account of penalty of compulsory retirement imposed upon him. Here, it would be in place to take note of Gurpal Singh Vs. High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan2 that reiterates, when an employee is completely exonerated, not found blameworthy in the least and is not visited with the penalty even of censure, he has to be given the benefit of the salary of the higher post along with the other benefits from the date on which he would 2 (2012)13 SCC 94 2025:HHC:36706 - 9 - have normally been promoted but for the disciplinary/ criminal proceedings. Relevant paras from the judgment are as under:- “50. In view of the authoritative judgment rendered by this Court in Jankiraman, the submissions made by Mr Calla would have to be accepted. In the aforesaid judgment it was held that: "26. We are, therefore, broadly in agreement with the finding of the Tribunal that when an employee is completely exonerated meaning thereby that he is not found blameworthy in the least and is not visited with the penalty even of censure, he has to be given the benefit of the salary of the higher post along with the other benefits from the date on which he would have normally been promoted but for the disciplinary/ criminal proceedings." 51. In this case, it is a matter of record that upon exoneration in the departmental enquiry, the petitioner was reinstated in service. No punishment was inflicted on him at all. However, during the pendency of the criminal trial as also the departmental proceedings, he was not considered for promotion, when the cases of persons junior to him were considered. In our opinion, the High Court erred in directing in the Full Court Resolution dated 29-11-2008, and the communication dated 24-1-2009 that the petitioner shall not be entitled for any promotion. 52. We, therefore, partly allow the writ petition. We reject the submissions of Mr Calla that the suspension of the petitioner was rendered wholly unjustified upon acquittal by the trial court. We also reject the submissions of Mr Calla that the suspension of the petitioner was wholly unjustified during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court. We, however, hold that the continued suspension of the petitioner during 2025:HHC:36706 - 10 - the pendency of the departmental proceedings was wholly unjustified. The petitioner is, therefore, held entitled to full pay and allowances from 27-9-2005 i.e. the date of the judgment rendered by the Delhi High Court onwards. We further hold that the petitioner was entitled to be considered for promotion notionally from the date when an officer junior to him was promoted. We, therefore, direct the High Court to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion (if he otherwise satisfies the requirements as per the Rules) from the date when a person junior to him was considered and promoted to the next higher post. Let such a decision be taken by the High Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. 53. We further direct that the petitioner would be entitled to all the consequential benefits, such as salary and other allowances by treating him on duty with effect from the date the appeal against acquittal was dismissed by the Delhi High Court and after fixing his last pay drawn correctly. The consequential benefits shall be paid to him with 6% interest from the date of the dismissal of the appeal by the High Court on 27-9- 20051. The enhanced retiral benefits shall be released to him within three months of the receipt of a copy of this order.” The respondents in their reply have tried to take a defence that they did not choose to proceed with the inquiry, therefore, in view of 2nd option provided in LPA No.62 of 2010, petitioner is not entitled to back wages. But the fact of the matter is that the respondents actually did proceed ahead 2025:HHC:36706 - 11 - with the inquiry against the petitioner. They had exercised first option and not the second. Learned counsel for the respondents fairly admitted that respondents had proceeded against the petitioner under a new inquiry, report of which was furnished vide Annexure P-3 and it was taken to logical conclusion under order dated 01.08.2015. That being the admitted position, the respondents could not have denied back wages/arrears due to the petitioner after his exoneration, by taking shelter of the second eventuality provided under para-18 of the judgment dated 19.06.2014, rendered in LPA No.62 of 2010. 5. In view of above, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned direction No.5 of the impugned office order dated 01.08.2015 (Annexure P-4) is quashed and set aside. Respondents/Competent Authority is directed to consider the case of the petitioner and pass order in accordance with law for payment of due and admissible back wages/arrears to him from the date of his compulsory retirement w.e.f. 17.04.1998 till 01.08.2015 (the date of his reinstatement pursuant to office dated 01.08.2015) keeping in view the observations made above. 2025:HHC:36706 - 12 - The DCRG, which is due to the petitioner, shall also be paid to him after offsetting/adjusting the recovery, if any, to be effected from the petitioner on account of payment made to him consequent upon penalty of compulsory retirement previously imposed upon the petitioner. This exercise be carried out within three weeks from today and the revised financial/retiral benefits due and admissible to the petitioner, be also paid to him within the aforesaid period. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge November 03, 2025 R.Atal