( 2026:HHC:25824 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWPOA No.174 of 2019 Decided on: 30.06.2026 Rajeev Sharma ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _______________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate vice Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Hemant Kumar Verma, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 4-State. Mr. Avnish Mandhotra vice Mr. Parav Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.5. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) The petitioner by way of present petition has prayed for quashing of order dated 07.11.2008, (Annexure P-14) passed by respondent No.3, whereby his services, while working as Junior Engineer (Civil) were terminated. 2. The facts as emerge from the pleadings are that the petitioner was engaged as Junior Engineer, vide office order dated 02.12.2004 (Annexure R-1) under Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan (for short 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ( 2026:HHC:25824 ) 2 ‘SSA’) for a period of one year, on contract basis. While working in Community Development Block (in short CD Block), Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, H.P., he was directed/ordered by respondent No.4 to attend all civil works of CD Blocks Sadar and Sawarghat, Bilaspur (which consist entire two Education Blocks viz. Sadar and Sawarghat) because the post of Junior Engineer of CD Block Sadar on contract basis was vacant. As per the directions given by respondent No.4, the petitioner started attending all civil works of CD Block Sadar, Bilaspur. It has been averred in the petition that the petitioner was given additional charge of Sadar Education Block vide order dated 13.02.2007 (Annexure P-2). He was asked to visit the spot on 17.01.2008 and submit a detailed report to respondent No.4 before 25.01.2008. It has also been averred that a complaint was received regarding use of substandard material in the construction of Government Middle School, Dhoun-Kothi under SSA Pradhan, Adarsh Welfare Society. Respondent No.4 and the Assistant Engineer of SSA visited the spot on 18.01.2007 and inspected the construction work and found the same to be satisfactory upto the plinth level. 3. The petitioner submitted his report on 14.03.2008 and stated that the work is satisfactory and of good quality. A complaint was made by the Adarsh Welfare Society Dhoun Koti and Baloh to ( 2026:HHC:25824 ) 3 the Chief Minister, Himachal Pradesh, in which it was alleged that substandard material is being used in the construction of four rooms in Government Middle School Dhoun Koti and the Chief Minister had directed to inquire into the matter. Thereafter, the matter was got enquired into in the presence of the petitioner and as per report dated 05.06.2008, certain irregularities were found. After receipt of the report, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 29.09.2008 (Annexure P-9) that why disciplinary action should not be initiated against him for the reason that it has come in the inquiry report that poor technical advice/assistance was provided by the technical staff. The petitioner is negligent for not providing proper technical advice and conducting proper examination of construction work and as such asked to submit a representation within 10 days from the date of receipt of show cause notice. Despite the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he did not submit the reply and respondent No.4 issued reminder regarding non-submission of representation on 13.10.2008 (Annexure P-10). The petitioner replied to the show cause notice and averred that he was directed by the Assistant Engineer (SSA) in June 2006 to provide technical guidance for a day only to Village Education Committee (for short the ‘VEC’), GMS, Dhaun-Kothi. He was not holding the charge of Sadar Block in which this school falls. However, in compliance with ( 2026:HHC:25824 ) 4 the order, he had visited the aforesaid school on 21.06.2006, but on that day, site was not selected by the VEC of concerned school. Even then, he had provided the drawing of four rooms to the Chairman concerned of VEC. After that day, he was not ordered to visit the school separately because he was not assigned this block and was serving as J.E. in Jhandutta Block. He was assigned Sadar and Swarghat Blocks on 13.02.2007. So far as the construction of the rooms is concerned, this was executed in the month of July/August, 2006, which is also reflected in the report of A.E. DRDA. On 18.01.2007, respondent No.4 and Assistant Engineer, SSA visited the school and gave remarks on VEC register that the work is found satisfactory upto to plinth level. The construction of these four rooms till today is at the same level as on 18.01.2007. On receipt of reply, respondent No.3 had passed an office order dated 07.11.2008 (Annexure P-14), whereby the services of the petitioner have been terminated. The petitioner after termination of his services made a representation (Annexure P-15), seeking review of order dated 17.11.2008. 3. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the order of termination of his services has approached this Court inter-alia on the grounds that the order passed by the respondents is wrong, illegal, unsustainable in law. It has further been averred that the ( 2026:HHC:25824 ) 5 petitioner has been condemned unheard. The petitioner was not posted at the relevant time in Sadar Block, where the above mentioned construction work was carried out. He was only asked to provide assistance to the VEC only for a particular day i.e. 21.06.2006. Thereafter, he was never asked/deputed to inspect the said construction work. It was not the duty of the petitioner to take care/supervise the construction work in the above mentioned school. He was given the charge of Sadar Block on 13.02.2007 and the above referred work was executed in June, 2006, as such, he cannot be held liable for the same. It is alleged that respondent No.5 along- with Assistant Engineer had visited the spot on 18.01.2007 and found the construction work to be satisfactory and thus, the petitioner prayed for quashing of the order of termination. 4. Respondents No.1 to 4 filed reply to the petition and raised preliminary submissions that the petitioner while working in the Jhandutta Block was directed/ordered by respondent No.4 to attend all the civil works of C.D. Block Sadar, Bilaspur (which consist entire two education block viz. Sadar and Swarghat), because the post of Junior Engineer of CD Block Sadar on contract basis was vacant. In compliance with the said direction, the petitioner started attending all the civil work of CD Block Sadar Bilaspur, which is clear from the progress report submitted by him upto 31.07.2006, which ( 2026:HHC:25824 ) 6 was prepared and signed by him. In the progress report, the petitioner at serial No.7 in column 1 Dhon Kothi and column No.3 has written that the site has been selected and the Government Middle School, Dhon Kothi was situated in Block Sadar, Bilaspur. The utilization certificate dated 27.10.2006 submitted by the petitioner also shows that he attended the civil work of CD Block Sadar Bilaspur. The petitioner was directed to conduct the spot inquiry on 17.01.2008 as the complaint was received from respondent No.3 and he was directed to submit a detailed report before 25.01.2008. However, in the report submitted by him on 14.03.2008, it was stated that the concerned work was satisfactory and of good quality. The report submitted by him has been placed on record as Annexure R-VI. It has further been averred that the matter was got inquired into in the presence of the petitioner through the Assistant Engineer (DRDA) Bilaspur and as per his technical and physical report dated 05.06.2008, grave irregularities were found in the construction work and the said report has been placed on record as Annexure R-VIII. In the report, it was stated that the material such as Bajri (aggregate) from the nearby Khud, Sand etc. have been used. As per statement of the petitioner, it is permissible in the guidelines. The steel as visible on site in columns was just seems to be sufficient if the building was to be restricted for one storey only. It ( 2026:HHC:25824 ) 7 has further been averred on merits that as per information received from respondent No.4 the post of Assistant Engineer was vacant w.e.f. 31.05.2006 to 01.11.2006 and during this period, the construction of the room in Government Middle School, Dhon Kothi has been executed under the overall technical supervision of the petitioner only. Since the petitioner had failed to perform his duties properly, the order of termination has been passed. 5. Respondent No.5 filed separate reply. It has been averred that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and further has suppressed the material facts and has misrepresented the things with ulterior motive and hence the petition deserves dismissal. It has further been averred that respondent No.5 has unnecessarily been impleaded in the present petition just to harass him. As per terms and conditions of the contract the petitioner had entered, as per condition in para 3 of the agreement, his services can be terminated at any time. It has further been averred that the petitioner had visited the Government Middle School, Dhon Kothi on 21.06.2006 and 26.07.2006. He has submitted the monthly status report of the said construction and placed on record the relevant documents. 6. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply filed by respondents No.1 to 4 and controverted the averments. ( 2026:HHC:25824 ) 8 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer (SAS) vide order dated 02.12.2004. A perusal of the office order clearly reveals that the services of the petitioner can be dispensed with by the Chairman/Mission Director/State Project Director/District Project Coordinator at any time without assigning any reason. On the date when the services of the petitioner were terminated, he was working on contract basis. The plea taken by the petitioner that he had only visited on a particular date i.e. 21.06.2006 when he was asked by the Assistant Engineer to the VEC only is not true, in view of the fact that he had visited the school to see the construction, which is clear from the utilization certificate and progress report Annexures R-II and R-III. These documents have not been disputed by the petitioner. Once the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands as evident from a perusal of the documents placed on record and mentioned the wrong facts, he does not deserve any sympathy of the Court. It has come on record that the post of Junior Engineer of CD Block Sadar, Bilaspur was lying vacant and the petitioner was assigned the work of the school building and further the post of Assistant Engineer was also vacant w.e.f.31.05.2006 to 01.11.2006. The petitioner had ( 2026:HHC:25824 ) 9 submitted the progress report upto 31st July, 2006 and thus, the plea taken by the petitioner that he was assigned the work of Sadar Block on 13.02.2007 is totally wrong and false. Not only this, when the petitioner was asked to submit the report regarding the work having been executed vide letter dated 17.01.2008, he had submitted the report on 14.03.2008 (Annexure R-VIII), wherein he had stated that the first class bricks are stacked at construction site, framed structure is constructed, hard stones are used in foundation and soling, water borne aggregate is being used in columns and seismic band and sand of Kansa khud has been used in the construction work. The construction of school building is found satisfactory and good quality material is being used in construction work. However, when the matter was inquired into and the petitioner was also associated in the inquiry, it was found that the material used for the construction work is not found to be satisfactory as the steel was visible on site in columns. After the available excavation by the VEC, it was observed that only in one column (C2), the foundation seems to be near to the specifications; in 2nd column (C1), the foundation is not up to the required depth and of proper shape; and in the third column (C15) the foundation has not been upto the required depth and its seems that it started just from the beneath the ground embedded in the dry stone ( 2026:HHC:25824 ) 10 masonry with plaster and outside. No form work has been seen taken below the plinth level, the columns have been casted just by putting stone around for the purpose of shuttering. After checking of steel in plinth beams, the beam was found to be broken at places. It was also noticed that concrete has not been laid properly and there was a big boulder casted in the beam, which indicates the trend of work which has been executed under specification. After receipt of the inquiry report, the petitioner was issued the show cause notice dated 29.09.2008 and when the reply was not found to be satisfactory, his services were terminated. Once the petitioner was asked to submit his report, he should have informed about the actual position of the construction. However, he mentioned that the progress is up to the mark, which information was wrong and it was ascertained when the same got inquired into, in which, the petitioner was associated and, the things were found otherwise. Since the petitioner did not perform his duties properly and further the plea taken by him that he had only visited on one day i.e. 21.06.2006, is found to be incorrect as per documents placed on record by the respondents with the reply. There is no error in the order whereby the services of the petitioner have been terminated. 9. The petitioner has not disputed the factum that the post of Junior Engineer in Education Block Sadar was lying vacant and ( 2026:HHC:25824 ) 11 further the post of Assistant Engineer too was lying vacant w.e.f. 31.05.2006 to 01.11.2006 and thus it was more important for the petitioner to see and report correctly in their absence and since he failed to render proper assistance to the VEC and further did not inspect the work and reported it otherwise, which was found to be wrong, no illegality has been committed by respondent No.3 while terminating the services of the petitioner, more particularly, when he was appointed on contract basis. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the work was executed in June, 2006 and he was given the charge of Sadar Block on 13.02.2007 and as such, he could not have held liable for the same. The said contention cannot be accepted for the reason that the work was not executed in June, 2006 and the petitioner even while filing reply to the show cause notice on 20.10.2008 had stated that on 18.01.2007, the construction of four rooms were at the plinth level. Therefore, the plea now taken by the petitioner that the work was executed in June, 2006, cannot be believed, rather the same is contrary to the stand taken by him. As already noticed above, once the petitioner was asked to submit the report with respect to the work having been executed on the spot, he had submitted that the first class bricks are stacked at construction site, framed structure is ( 2026:HHC:25824 ) 12 constructed, hard stones are used in foundation and the construction of school building is found satisfactory and good quality material is being used in construction work, whereas in the inquiry report, it was found otherwise. Since the petitioner was associated in the inquiry and he has not challenged the inquiry report (Annexure R-VIII), no illegality can be said to be found with the order, whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated. 11. No other point has been raised. 12. Resultantly, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) 30th June, 2026 Judge (naveen)