Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 4025 (HP)

Parkash Chand Daroch v. State of H. P.

2025-12-02

Jyotsna Rewal Dua

body2025
JUDGMENT : Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. Respondents issued two memorandum of charges to the petitioner, one in the year 2022 and the other in 2023. Both these memorandums were quashed by the Court in two writ petitions filed by the petitioner. Petitioner superannuated on 31.10.2024. After his superannuation, the third memorandum of charges was issued to him on 05.11.2024. Interestingly, in view of the services rendered, petitioner was also simultaneously re-employed for six months after his retirement. On account of the third memorandum of charges issued to the petitioner, respondents have withheld his Death-cum- Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) and Leave Encashment. In this petition, challenge has been laid to the memorandum of charges issued to the petitioner on 05.11.2024 and respondents’ action of withholding DCRG & Leave Encashment from the petitioner. 2. The case 2(i). A memorandum of charges was issued to the petitioner on 09.05.2022 under the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (in short ‘CCS (CCA) Rules’). This was questioned by the petitioner in Dr. Prakash Chand Daroch Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Another, CWP No.3451 of 2022, decided on 21.11.2022 wherein following reliefs were claimed:- “(a). That impugned show cause notice dated 28.02.2022, Annexure P-1 and Memo dated 09.05.2022 containing article of charge, Annexure-4 may very kindly be quashed and set-aside with directions to the respondents not to harass and humiliate the petitioner; (b) That present is a case, particularly in view of orders of this Hon’ble court, for calling for the records to lift the veil, in which directions may very kindly be issued to respondent No.1 to look and inquire into the matter personally as with respect to malafide use of powers by officers added party by name and proceed against them for misconduct as per service jurisprudence and to place on record the inquiry report and Action Taken Report of this case so that the same may be an eye opener for others not to harass and humiliate, the employees like the petitioner.” The writ petition was allowed as under:- “16. Although, this Court does not interfere in the matter where show cause notice or inquiry has been initiated against an employee but the facts of the present case are peculiar. Although, this Court does not interfere in the matter where show cause notice or inquiry has been initiated against an employee but the facts of the present case are peculiar. In the present case, matter in dispute has already been duly inquired into and as per the report of the SDO (Civil), Una, dated 27.04.2018 SMO-cum- Member Secretary, RKS, Regional Hospital, Una had been found to be responsible in issuing the allotment letter in favour of Vivek Singhal. The said inquiry report does not show that the petitioner had any role to play in allotment of Shop to Vivek Singhal. However, now again action is sought to be taken against the petitioner with regard to allotment made in favour of Vivek Singhal vide letter/order dated 29.09.2017 and the said allotment already stands cancelled. Now the proceedings are sought to be initiated against the petitioner by placing reliance on decision of this Court in CWP No. 4753 of 2020, whereas, the petitioner was not a party in the said writ petition nor the allotment of shop made in favour of Vivek Singhal vide order dated 29.09.2017 was in issue. It is only the respondents who were party in the CWP No.4753 of 2020, had to be proceeded against by the Chief Secretary Government of H.P. for necessary action. 17. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the petition deserves to be allowed. 18. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned show cause notice dated 28.02.2022, Annexure P-1 and Memorandum dated 09.05.2022 Annexure P-4 contained in article of charge are quashed.” 2(ii). Respondents issued another memorandum of charges to the petitioner on 03.08.2023. This was assailed by him in Dr. 18. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned show cause notice dated 28.02.2022, Annexure P-1 and Memorandum dated 09.05.2022 Annexure P-4 contained in article of charge are quashed.” 2(ii). Respondents issued another memorandum of charges to the petitioner on 03.08.2023. This was assailed by him in Dr. Parkash Chand Daroch Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, CWP No.5323 of 2023, decided on 09.11.2023 claiming following reliefs:- “(a) That impugned Memo dated 3.8.2023, Annexure P-7, issued by respondent No 1, thereby containing article of charges may very kindly be quashed and set aside being totally untenable in the eyes of law; (b) That Memo dated 3.8.2023, Annexure P-7, having been issued in knowing and willful disobedience of the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in CWP No 3451 of 2022, thus appropriate proceedings for knowing and willful disobedience of the judgment of this Hon’ble Court may very kindly be initiated against respondent No 1, by summoning, prosecuting and punishing it to upkeep the majesty of law in high esteem; (c) That petitioner having been put to unnecessary mental and financial anxiety, thus, writ petition, as filed, may very kindly be allowed with exemplary costs as provided under Section 35-A of the Code of Civil Procedure.” The writ petition was allowed with following directions:- “23. Given in view of the above discussion, the instant writ petition is allowed, in terms of the following directions:- (i). Given in view of the above discussion, the instant writ petition is allowed, in terms of the following directions:- (i). Memorandum dated 3.8.2023, Annexure P-7 {referred to as the second charge sheet} is declared inoperative and is quashed and set aside; (ii) Respondent No 1-Principal Secretary (Health) is directed to consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of Joint Director of Health Services on regular basis w.e.f. April 2023 against the two available vacancies, in terms of Instructions mandating holding of DPC in April every year, forthwith; (iii) Respondents No 1-Principal Secretary (Health) is directed to consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of Joint Director of Health Services, on regular basis, from the date the Respondent No 3-junior incumbent was promoted on the basis of DPC held in August 2023, {by ignoring sealed cover} forthwith; (iv) Respondent No 1-Principal Secretary (Health) shall grant promotion to the petitioner from due dates, {as in(ii) or (iii) whichever is beneficial} with all consequential benefits, by adjusting rights/equities against vacant posts at relevant time or against existing vacancies forthwith; (v) Consequent upon quashing of memorandum and grant of promotion, the petitioner shall rank senior to Respondent no 3 as Joint Director Health Services for all purposes forthwith; (vi) Costs made easy for parties to lis herein.” 2(iii). Petitioner was due for promotion to the post of Director Health Services, but not promoted. Instead, the petitioner was promoted as Joint Director Health Services on 10.07.2024 retrospectively w.e.f. 09.08.2023. Petitioner retired as Joint Director Health Services with additional charge of the Director Health Services on 31.10.2024. He was re-employed by the respondents as Joint Director Health Services with additional charge of Director Health Services for a period of six months, which elapsed on 30.04.2025. 2(iv). After petitioner’s superannuation on 31.10.2024, respondents issued him yet another memorandum of charges on 05.11.2024 in exercise of the powers under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 for proceeding under Rules 14 & 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Due to pendency of this memorandum of charges, respondents have not released DCRG and Leave Encashment to the petitioner. 2(v). Instant writ petition relates to third memorandum of charges issued to the petitioner on 05.11.2024 (Annexure P-5). Petitioner seeks quashing of this memorandum of charges and release of his retiral benefits, i.e. withheld DCRG and Leave Encashment. 3. Due to pendency of this memorandum of charges, respondents have not released DCRG and Leave Encashment to the petitioner. 2(v). Instant writ petition relates to third memorandum of charges issued to the petitioner on 05.11.2024 (Annexure P-5). Petitioner seeks quashing of this memorandum of charges and release of his retiral benefits, i.e. withheld DCRG and Leave Encashment. 3. The memorandum of charges issued by the respondents on 05.11.2024 contains following Articles of Charges:- “Article-I That Dr. Parkash Chand Daroch, the then Medical Superintendent, MGMSC Khaneri (Rampur) District Shimla (Now Joint Director Health, Services, HP (Retd.) Shimla purchased equipment's/furniture's of worth Rupees 80,43,352/- without adhering to the instructions of Finance Department dated 16-01-2017 thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty, while holding the responsible post of Medical Superintendent, MGMSC Khaneri (Rampur) District Shimla. Thus, the said act of omission and commission on the part of Dr. Parkash Chand Daroch, is unbecoming of a Government servant and is in violation of Rule 3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and has rendered himself liable for disciplinary action under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Article-II That Dr. Parkash Chand Daroch, the then Medical Superintendent, MGMSC Khaneri (Rampur) District Shimla (Now Joint Director (Retd.), Health Services, HP) Shimla has purchased of equipment's/ furniture's to the tune of Rs.80,43,352/- without following the transparent process of tender as enshrined in the HPFR-2009. Thus, the said act of omission and commission on the part of Dr. Parkash Chand Daroch, is unbecoming of a Government servant. Thus, he has disobeyed and violated various rules and instructions respectively, framed for making purchases by Govt. departments, which is a violation of different provisions envisaged under Rule 3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and has rendered himself liable for disciplinary action under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Article-III That Dr. Parkash Chand Daroch, the then Medical Superintendent, MGMSC Khaneri (Rampur) District Shimla (Now Joint Director Health Services, HP (Retd.) placed the supply order directly to the supplier, without recommendation of the Purchase Committee and has thus behaved in selfstyled manner and has not followed the proper procedure while placing the supply order for purchase of goods for Hospital which is uncalled for from any Govt. servant specially from a higher officer of Medical Superintendent Rank. Thus, the said act of omission and commission on the part of Dr. servant specially from a higher officer of Medical Superintendent Rank. Thus, the said act of omission and commission on the part of Dr. Parkash Chand Daroch, is unbecoming of a Government servant and is in violation of various provisions of Rule 3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and has rendered himself liable for disciplinary action under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.” The main charges leveled against the petitioner are that:- • While posted as Medical Superintendent, MGMSC Khaneri (Rampur), District Shimla, the petitioner purchased equipments/furniture worth Rs.80,43,352/- without adhering to the Finance Department’s instructions dated 16.01.2017. He thereby failed to maintain integrity and devotion to duty. • While purchasing equipments/furniture, the petitioner did not follow the transparent process of tenders enshrined in the H.P. Financial Rules, 2009. • Petitioner had placed supply order in question directly to the supplier without recommendations of the Purchase Committee. He, thus, behaved in a self-styled manner and did not follow the prescribed procedure for placing the supply order. Such conduct was uncalled from any government servant, specially from a high ranking officer of the rank of Medical Superintendent. The petitioner was alleged to have violated various provisions of Rule 3 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and thereby rendered himself liable for disciplinary action under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. 4. Consideration:- It is well settled that Courts normally exercise restraint in interfering at the stage of issuance of memorandum of charges by the disciplinary authority. Taking note of Union of India and another vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana , (2006) 12 SCC 28 , Secretary Ministry of Defence and others vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha , (2012) 11 SCC 565 and Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others vs. A. Masilamani , (2013) 6 SCC 530 Hon’ble Division Bench culled out following principles on the subject in CWPOA No.5991 of 2020 ( Shyam Lal Versus State of H.P. and others ):- “10. The principle deducible from the aforesaid decision:- i) Ordinarily writ does not lie against show cause notice/charge memo; ii) entertaining writ petition against show cause notice/charge memo is dehors the limits of judicial review/exceeds the power of judicial review at the threshold; iii) issuance of show cause notice/charge memo, does not adversely affect/infringe the rights of the employee; does not amount to an adverse order; iv) normally a charge sheet is not quashed prior to the conducting of the enquiry on the ground that the facts stated in the charge are erroneous as determination of correctness or truth of the charge is the function of the disciplinary authority. It would be premature to deal with the issues; v) in only from rare and exceptional cases, if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason, if it is wholly illegal, court can exercise of judicial review at the stage of show cause notice/charge memo; vi) discretion under article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised to quash charge sheet/show cause notice.” Keeping the above legal position in view, I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. On considering following facts, I am of the considered view that a case for interference with the impugned memorandum of charges is made out. 4(i). Genesis of impugned memorandum of charges:- 4(i)(a). The genesis of impugned memorandum of charges is the following complaint (page 39 of the paper book):- The complaint is with the allegations that the petitioner had purchased equipments approximately worth Rs.80 Lakhs without following proper procedure. The complainant has referred himself to be the resident of ‘Nehar Colony, Bhangala, Hoshiarpur, Punjab, PIN: 144306’, but in the body of the complaint, has projected himself to be resident of Pathankot and running a ‘startup’ for supplying articles to government offices in the State of Himachal Pradesh. 4(i)(b). Both sides are in agreement that detailed guidelines have been issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Department of Home (Vigilance) for dealing with the anonymous and pseudonymous complaints. These guidelines issued on 19.02.2016 have been placed on record at Annexure P-3. Portion relevant to the context reads as under:- “Subject: Regarding dealing with anonymous and pseudonymous complaints. Sir/Madam, I am directed to refer to the subject cited above and to say that as per provisions of para-2.1. These guidelines issued on 19.02.2016 have been placed on record at Annexure P-3. Portion relevant to the context reads as under:- “Subject: Regarding dealing with anonymous and pseudonymous complaints. Sir/Madam, I am directed to refer to the subject cited above and to say that as per provisions of para-2.1. Chapter-II of Vigilance Manual, such complaints which are anonymous and pseudonymous are generally required to be filed. It has also come to the notice of Government that anonymous and pseudonymous complaints are being made against departments/employees which effects adversely on the morale of the services. 2. It is clarified that ‘Anonymous complaints’ are such complaints which do not carry both, name & address of the complainant, whereas ‘Pseudonymous complaints’ are such complaints which carry/bear fictious name & address of the complainant. 3. The Central Vigilance Commission had circulated the instructions regarding action to be taken on anonymous & pseudonymous complaints vide their Circular No.07/11/2014 dated 25.11.2014 (copy enclosed) that the Commission has reviewed the matter and considering all aspects, would prescribe that no action should be taken on anonymous/ pseudonymous complaints by the Ministries/Departments/ Organizations. 4. The department of Administrative Reforms Organization, Government of Himachal Pradesh had also circulated the guidelines dated 18.10.2013 (copy enclosed) issued by the Department of Personnel & Training, Govt. of India regarding handling of such complaints vide their letter No.PER-(AR)E(1)-3/2008-I dated 31.3.2014 for strict compliance. The Department of Personnel & Training, Govt. of India have re-iterated above instructions vide OM No.104/76/ 2011.AVD.I dated 31.03.2015 (copy enclosed), with the following procedure to be laid down while dealing with anonymous and pseudonymous complaints:- (i) No action is required to be taken on anonymous complaints, irrespective of the nature of allegations and such complaints need to be simply filed. (ii) Complaints containing vague allegations could also be filed without verification of identity of the complainant. (iii) If a complaint contains verified allegations, the administrative Ministry/Department may take cognizance of such complaint with the approval of the competent authority to be designated by the Ministry/Department as per their distribution of work. In such cases, the complaint will be first sent to the complainant for owning/disowning, as the case may be. If no response is received from the complainant within 15 days of sending the complaint, a reminder will be sent. In such cases, the complaint will be first sent to the complainant for owning/disowning, as the case may be. If no response is received from the complainant within 15 days of sending the complaint, a reminder will be sent. After waiting for 15 days after sending the reminder, if still nothing is heard, the said complaint may be filed as pseudonymous by the Ministry/ Department. It is, therefore, requested that these instructions/ guidelines issued by the Central Vigilance Commission, Govt. of India and provisions of Vigilance Manual may please be got adhered strictly while dealing with such complaints, in future. Encls. 12 (Twelve) pages Yours faithfully, Sd/- Special Secretary (Vigilance) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh.” As per above guidelines, no action is required to be taken on anonymous complaints irrespective of the nature of allegations. Such complaints are to be simply filed. If a complaint contains verified allegations, it is to be first sent to the complainant for owning/disowning, as the case may be. If no response is received from the complainant within 15 days of sending the complaint, a reminder is to be sent. If still nothing is heard for 15 days after sending the reminder, the complaint may be filed as ‘pseudonymous’ by the concerned Ministry/Department. 4(i)(c). While furnishing his response to the explanation called by the respondents on the above complaint, the petitioner specifically took up the objection that the complaint was pseudonymous as the complainant on one hand had referred himself as resident of District Pathankot without giving any precise address or location, but on the other, he had mentioned his address as ‘Nehar Colony, Bhangala, Hoshiarpur, Punjab’ without pointing out any specific house number. Petitioner also expressed his ignorance about any startup of the complainant in the State of Himachal Pradesh as alleged in the complaint or the fact that the complainant had ever applied for any tender in MGMSC Khaneri (Rampur), District Shimla during petitioner’s tenure as Medical Superintendent. 4(i)(d). Petitioner’s response dated 19.08.2024 (Annexure P-2) was sent by the respondents (page 81 of the paper book) to the complainant with direction to submit comments on petitioner’s reply. The complainant responded as under:- 4(i)(e). A perusal of above letter at page 105 of the paper book reflects the same having been received on 05.09.2024. The letter does not bear any address and is undated. The complainant responded as under:- 4(i)(e). A perusal of above letter at page 105 of the paper book reflects the same having been received on 05.09.2024. The letter does not bear any address and is undated. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner alleges it to be a procured one as neither the mode of dispatch nor the receipt thereof is available. Learned Senior Counsel, in fact, invited specific attention to the signatures of the complainant on two available documents, i.e. page 39-complaint dated 31.07.2024 and page 105-undated letter of the complainant (reproduced above), to highlight the difference in the complainant’s signatures on the two letters in support of his plea that the complaint was ‘pseudonymous’ and no such person by the name of Sunny Mahajan as mentioned in the complaint exists. The above submissions cannot be brushed aside as to the naked eye, the signatures of the complainant at page 39, prima facie, appear to be at variance with the signatures of the complainant at page 105. The address of the complainant has not been verified by the respondents. The complainant has given his address as ‘resident of Bhangala, Hoshiarpur, Punjab’ on the complaint (page 39 of the paper book), but in the body of the complaint, calls himself as the resident of Pathankot. House number of the complainant has not been mentioned. Another significant factor is that as per the respondents, the complainant was directed to appear before the Fact- Finding Inquiry Committee under respondents’ office letter dated 06.09.2024 (page 106 of the paper book), but the complainant admittedly chose not to appear. In the given facts and circumstances, the respondents have not cogently explained for not proceeding in the matter in accordance with the instructions/circular dated 19.02.2016, that deals with the anonymous and pseudonymous complaints. Respondents have neither adhered to the office circular nor explained the reasons for not doing so. 4(ii). Action upon the complaint:- 4(ii)(a). The complaint dated 31.07.2024 was addressed to the Secretary (Health) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh-respondent No.1. It was received in the office of respondent No.1 on 31.07.2024 and diarized the same day. It was dealt with by the office of respondent No.1 the same day. On 31.07.2024 itself, respondent No.1 made following handwritten note on the complaint:- “SS (H-A) for Immediate enquiring through a committee chaired by ADHS, Dep/Joint Controller Finance, DD (Dr. Yash Pal) and DD (Law). It was dealt with by the office of respondent No.1 the same day. On 31.07.2024 itself, respondent No.1 made following handwritten note on the complaint:- “SS (H-A) for Immediate enquiring through a committee chaired by ADHS, Dep/Joint Controller Finance, DD (Dr. Yash Pal) and DD (Law). The committee shall report in 45 days.” The action of respondent No.1 in straightway constituting the committee on the date of receiving the complaint without ascertaining the veracity of the complaint vis-à-vis anonymous and pseudonymous complaints as per respondents’ circular dated 19.02.2016 appears to be quite hasty. 4(ii)(b). Alongwith the complaint, certain office documents had been appended. The petitioner has questioned the source of complainant for appending the office documents. This aspect was not even looked into by respondent No.1, who ordered for constitution of the committee the moment he received the complaint. 4(ii)(c). On 12.08.2024, respondents issued a letter to the petitioner, calling upon him to furnish response to the allegations leveled against him in the complaint. Petitioner furnished his detailed response to the complaint on 19.08.2024. Petitioner’s response was considered by the Fact-Finding Committee constituted by respondent No.1. The scope and mandate of the inquiry of the Fact-Finding Committee was delineated as under:- “(a) To enquire into the allegations of purchase from single entity i.e. The Kailash District Co-operative Marketing and Consumer Federation Ltd. by the them MS Rampur, Dr. Prakash Chand Daroch between March and May 2024. (b) To enquire into the allegations of having been made purchase of about Rs.80 lacs in violation of the Government instructions without calling for any tender/quotation.” The committee, inter alia, recorded the statements of Sh. Devinder Kumar, Data Entry Operator at MGMSC Khaneri (Rampur), Smt. Suni Devi, Senior Assistant, Sh. Amit Kumar, Pharmacy Officer, Hospital Store and the petitioner. The committee also scrutinized the record of purchases made between February, 2023 to May, 2024 and derived following facts:- • Keeping in view the requirement of hospital furniture including for trauma centre, physiotherapy and for construction of modular desks, a decision was taken by the Purchase Committee constituted at the local level at MGMSC Khaneri under the chairmanship of the Medical Superintendent (petitioner) to make purchase from the Kailash Federation, Shimla. • Sh. • Sh. Devinder Kumar and the petitioner stated that H.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation and H.P. State Electronic Development Corporation were contacted for supply of the equipments, but these offices expressed their inability to supply the hospital equipments and furniture items. However, there was nothing on record to demonstrate that the Purchase Committee had ever made any such reference to those authorities for the purchase to be effected and about their inability to do so. • It was only Kailash Federation, Shimla, which informed that it had empanelled firm for supply of hospital equipments and furniture. It agreed to supply the necessary items. Kailash Federation Shimla supplied proforma invoice of the items required for by MGMSC Khaneri. After the decision of the Purchase Committee, supply order worth Rs.80,43,352/- was placed and the supplies were received in the hospital. On the basis of above facts, the Committee arrived at following observations and findings:- “OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE After thorough examination and scrutiny of all records, considering the statements and other documentary proofs including the reply of the respondent relating to the purchases during January to May 2024 at MGMSC Khaneri, it is observed that the purchases under reference were made on the recommendation and decision of the committee(s) constituted from time to time at MGMSC Khaneri under the chairmanship of Dr. Parkash Chand Daroch on the strength of Government Instructions dated 16.01.2017 issued by Finance department, Annexure-M above, vide which boards, corporations and federations were authorized to supply items after meeting out the conditions of finalizing the rates of all such items through open bidding and tender process and empanelling Manufacturers, authorized distributors/ dealers for supply of items. It is observed that The Kailash Federation is an authorized entity but there is no evidence or documentary proof neither on record which goes on to show that it qualifies the conditions as laid down by the Finance Department Instructions dated 16.01.2017 regarding finalizing of rates through the transparent competitive bids, authorizing such Boards, corporations and federations to supply items, nor any such documentary proof supplied by the respondent Dr. Prakash Chand Daroch. Therefore in the absence of such evidence and documentary proof the committee prima-facie can-not conclude that purchases are made within the ambit and provisions of FD Instructions dated 16-1-2017. Prakash Chand Daroch. Therefore in the absence of such evidence and documentary proof the committee prima-facie can-not conclude that purchases are made within the ambit and provisions of FD Instructions dated 16-1-2017. It is observed that all purchases were made after due discussion in the meetings of purchase committee(s) and supply orders were given to the Federation on the basis of proforma in-voices and further inspection committee inspected the supplied items for its quality, quantity and specifications before receiving the consignment and thereafter supplies were received by the Store-Incharge. It is further found on the basis of bills and store/stock register that items after having received have been entered before making payment. The contention of respondent that complaint is pseudonymous proved not true as complainant responded to the notice served at the address through Registered post being received. The contention of respondent as per his reply submitted that sources of purchase were traced/ identified and further stating that controller of stores had no rate contract for the requisite items could not be verified due to lack of any documentary evidence on record. CONCLUSION By restricting ourselves strictly within the scope and mandate of the fact finding inquiry and as discussed above the committee concludes as under-: 1. The contention of the complainant that purchases of more than Rs.80 lakh is proved as payment of Rs.8043352/- have been made to the Federation. 2. Direct purchases from the Kailash Federation were made as per the provisions of the FD instructions dated 16-1-2017, however in the absence of any documentary evidence on record regarding finalization of rates by the said Federation through the transparent competitive bids as per one of the pre-requisite conditions of the above instructions itself, it can prima facie be concluded that the purchases were not within the ambit of the Government instructions dated 16-1-2017. 3. However, there is also no documentary evidence regarding making of any rate comparison of the items purchased to ascertain the rate- reasonability, by the purchase committee(s) of MGMSC Khaneri.” On the basis of above report of the Fact-Finding Committee, respondent No.1 issued memorandum of charges to the petitioner on 05.11.2024 and the DCRG & Leave Encashment due & admissible to the petitioner was withheld. 4(ii)(d). I am of the considered view that above action was uncalled for in the given facts. 4(ii)(d). I am of the considered view that above action was uncalled for in the given facts. Firstly, the Fact-Finding Committee had observed that it was the Purchase Committee that had placed order for purchasing hospital equipments/furniture upon Kailash Federation, Shimla, whereas, respondent No.1 has issued the memorandum of charges to the petitioner with the allegation in form of Article No.III that the petitioner had placed supply order directly to the supplier without any recommendations of the Purchase Committee. The Article of charge runs contrary to the findings of the committee. Alongwith the writ petition, petitioner has enclosed several documents to establish that purchase order was indeed placed by the Purchase Committee and not by the petitioner alone. Article of Charge No.III is disproved by the report of Fact-Finding Inquiry Committee. The inescapable conclusion is that respondent No.1 had issued the memorandum of charges to the petitioner without properly comprehending the report of the Fact-Finding Committee, the stated basis for issuing the impugned memorandum of charges. Admittedly, the other members of the Purchase Committee are not facing any disciplinary proceedings on this count. 4(ii)(e). The Fact-Finding Committee had made an observation that the supply order had been placed by the Purchase Committee upon Kailash Federation, Shimla without making any reference to the H.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation and H.P. State Electronic Development Corporation. As against this, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner referred to page 172 of the paper book, a communication informing the telephonic refusal by HPSEDC for providing furniture items on account of their non-availability. Reference was also made to a communication at page 173 of the paper book, from H.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited addressed to the Medical Superintendent, MGMSC Khaneri (Rampur), District Shimla, informing that the said Corporation had not empanelled any manufacturer/authorized distributor/dealer for supply of hospital equipments. Attention was also invited to page 212, a document certifying that Kailash District Cooperative Marketing and Consumer Federation Limited, The Mall, Shimla is a registered Cooperative Society, wherein share holding of the Government was 99.9% and the Federation is at par with other H.P. Government Undertakings like HPGIC, H.P. Khadi Board, HPSEDC, HimFed, Himachal Emporium etc. Attention was also invited to page 212, a document certifying that Kailash District Cooperative Marketing and Consumer Federation Limited, The Mall, Shimla is a registered Cooperative Society, wherein share holding of the Government was 99.9% and the Federation is at par with other H.P. Government Undertakings like HPGIC, H.P. Khadi Board, HPSEDC, HimFed, Himachal Emporium etc. The factual submissions made by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that on the basis of collective decision of the Purchase Committee, the supply orders were given to Kailash Federation for early supply keeping in view the newly constructed trauma centre, which was inaugurated on 15.03.2024 by the Hon’ble Chief Minister, have not been refuted by the learned Additional Advocate General. It is the finding of the Fact-Finding Committee that all purchases were made after due discussion in the meetings of Purchase Committee; Supply orders were given to Kailash Federation on the basis of proforma invoices; The Inspection Committee inspected the supplied items for quality, quantity and specifications before receiving the consignment and thereafter supplies were received by the Store-Incharge; The items received were entered in store/stock register before making payment. 4(ii)(f). It is not the case of the respondents that any loss was caused by the petitioner to the Department or that he was guilty of embezzling the amount in question. It has come in the Fact-Finding Committee’s report that all purchased items had been received in the hospital. Learned Additional Advocate General admitted that no order was passed by the competent authority to withhold Gratuity and Leave Encashment due to the petitioner, yet, these retiral benefits have not been released to him. In fact, it’s a case where considering petitioner’s past service, he had been re-employed after his retirement and was also simultaneously handed over a memorandum of charges. It is well settled that in view of mandate enshrined in Article 300-A of the Constitution, Pension, Gratuity or even Leave Encashment cannot be taken away without authority of law (Reference: State of Jharkhand & Ors. Versus Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr., (2013) 12 SCC 210 ). D.V. Kapoor Versus Union of India and Ors. , (1990) 4 SCC 314 holds that pension or gratuity cannot be withheld under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, unless a serious misconduct ornegligence is established in departmental proceedings or court case as per Rule 8(5) of the CCS (Pension) Rules. Versus Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr., (2013) 12 SCC 210 ). D.V. Kapoor Versus Union of India and Ors. , (1990) 4 SCC 314 holds that pension or gratuity cannot be withheld under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, unless a serious misconduct ornegligence is established in departmental proceedings or court case as per Rule 8(5) of the CCS (Pension) Rules. Without this specific finding, authorities have no power to deny these benefits fully or partly. In this case, even though the disciplinary case continued after the person retired voluntarily, the inquiry did not find any serious misconduct. So, the decision to permanently stop petitioner’s pension and gratuity was held illegal and beyond the power. Hon’ble Apex Court held that pension & gratuity are legal rights earned by employees and can only be stopped if the law allows and if the misconduct is proved. Present is not a case where respondents seek to recover some money from the petitioner. No such charge for recovery or pecuniary loss caused to the State, was even leveled in the charge-sheet. Additionally, despite there being no order to withhold, the payable DCRG and Leave encashment have been withheld from the petitioner. 5. From the above discussion, the complaint being anonymous/pseudonymous, cannot be ruled out. The complaint does not appear to be bonafide; There is variance in the address of the complainant; The complainant has chosen not to face the inquiry; The varying signatures of the complainant on the available two documents make it a suspicious document. The respondents have not followed the office circular dated 19.02.2016 for ascertaining the veracity of the complainant/complaint. The constitution of Fact-Finding Committee appears to have been ordered in haste. The report of the Fact-Finding Committee has not been analyzed properly by the respondents before issuing the memorandum of charges. Some of the charges leveled against the petitioner in the memorandum of charges dated 05.11.2024, in fact, run contrary to the report of the Fact- Finding Committee. The findings and conclusion drawn by the Committee have not been considered and comprehended appropriately read alongwith the relevant documents. The memorandum of charges has been issued mechanically to the petitioner, who at the same time, was also re-employed after his superannuation keeping in view the service rendered by him. In view of above discussion, I find merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The memorandum of charges has been issued mechanically to the petitioner, who at the same time, was also re-employed after his superannuation keeping in view the service rendered by him. In view of above discussion, I find merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned memorandum of charges dated 05.11.2024 (Annexure P-5) is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to release the pending retiral benefits to the petitioner forthwith. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.