2026:HHC:28981 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.2225 of 2020 Decided on: 13.07.2026 Parma Nand ...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. Sunil Mohan Goel, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Dhiraj Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) The petitioner by way of present petition has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:- “a) That the respondent may kindly be directed to quash and set aside the order dated 10.3.2016 (A- 2) and 29.12.2016 (A-4) 7 a) (i) That this Hon’ble Court may be please to set aside and quash office order No.BLS-TTND-(P)- 4(28)06/92-264 dated 25-1-2015 and addendum No. BLS-TTND-P.4(28)/06-92-322 dated 31-1-2015 (Annexure P-5) Collectively passed by respondent 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:28981 No.3.” 2. The facts as emerge from the pleadings are that the petitioner while working as Draftsman with respondent No.3 was entrusted with the duties to collect the amount of tender documents of construction branch and rent realization of Matri Chhaya Building belonging to the temple trust. On 25.03.2013, three tenders were sold to three different contractors and surety/tender amount of Rs.5,000/- each i.e. Rs.15000/- was collected by the petitioner from the contractors. However, it was noticed by the Temple Officer during examination of the record that on 25.03.2013, a sum of Rs.15,000/- was collected by the petitioner, but as per inspection of Day Book maintained by Sh. Surender Pal, Cash Counter Clerk, the entry of Rs.10,000/- instead of Rs.15,000/- was found and Rs.5,000/- was not deposited by the petitioner with Sh. Surender Pal, Cash Counter Clerk. After recording the statement of contractor namely Vijay Kumar, who stated that the petitioner had not given the amount of Rs.5,000/- to him, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, but he failed to explain the amount of embezzlement. Thereafter, he was placed under suspension and the disciplinary proceedings were initiated 3 2026:HHC:28981 against him. The following charges were framed against him:- Charge No. 1 Sh. Parma Nand S/O Sh. Krishan Ram Draftsman Temple Trust Shri Naina Deviji was dealing with the file related to Matri Chhaya building regarding renting out the same and he failed to locate the file for more than one and half years. A recovery of outstanding amount of Rs. 8,11,200/- was to be made from the concerned contractor but the delinquent official did not write/issue even a single letter to the defaulter being dealing hand for the recovery of the outstanding amount of Matri Chhaya building. As such the delinquent official has failed to perform his duty as assigned to him under the H.P. Hindu Public and Charitable Endowment Act, 1994. This act and conduct of delinquent official is contrary to the Temple Trust Bye Laws. Charge No. 2. During the examination of refund application of Sh. Vijay Kumar contractor it was found that on 25.03.2013 on day of the tenders, three parties tendered for three different works and security amount at the rate of Rs. 5000/-was received by the delinquent official from each party as per record but the delinquent official deposited only Rs. 10,000/- with counter clerk instead of Rs. 15,000/- whereas, Sh. Vijay Kumar had deposited a sum of Rs. 5000/- in cash on 25.3.2013, which was shown to be deposited in day book of 2013 at page 47. In this regard the statement of Sh. Vijay Kumar was also recorded by Temple Officer in his statement he told that after the successful over of the Mela Sharwan Ashtami he had applied for the refund of security amount deposited with Temple Trust. On the verification of the record, it was found that delinquent official has made cutting & tampering in the record, which was detected by Temple Officer in the register and when the clarification was sought by Temple Officer, he failed to explain the exact position. It clearly shows that amount of Rs. 5000/- was not deposited in Trust account. On 3.11.2013 vide receipt No. 1583 delinquent official deposited Rs. 2500/- on counter as security amount of recovery van of Shri Vijay Kumar after an interval of 8 months and subsequently vide receipt No. 4 2026:HHC:28981 1647 dated 22.11.2013 another Rs. 2500/- was deposited by delinquent official. This type of act on part of delinquent official is tantamount to direct embezzlement of Trust amount and tampering of official record is also a serious charge in the light of Temple Trust Bye Laws 1994. 3. After conducting the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted the enquiry report. Out of two charges, one charge with respect to cutting and tempering in the security amount register was proved and the petitioner also deposited the embezzled amount of Rs.2500/- each in Temple Trust account in two equal instalments. Thereafter, respondent No.3 being the Disciplinary Authority had imposed the penalty vide order dated 25.01.2015 (Annexure A-5) and the pay of the petitioner was reduced by a lower stage from Rs.17770+4200=21970 in the time scale of pay Rs.10300-34800+4200 for a period of two years w.e.f. 01.01.2015 to 31.12.2016. It was ordered that the petitioner would not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and that, on the expiry of the said period, the reduction would not have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay. However, subsequently respondent No.3 issued addendum on 31.01.2015 when the time scale of Rs.10300-34800+4200 which was earlier mentioned in the office order dated 5 2026:HHC:28981 25.01.2015 was substituted by the words “To the minimum of the pay band i.e. Rs.10300-4200 dated 21.01.2015 for two years”. 4. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the impugned orders, whereby the penalty was imposed upon him, had preferred the statutory appeal before respondent No.2, who vide order dated 10.03.2016 partly accepted the appeal and the order(s) dated 25.01.2015 and 31.01.2015, vide which the penalties were imposed upon the petitioner were set aside and it was ordered that the dues withheld under the aforesaid orders dated 25.01.2015 and 31.01.2015 be released to him. However, the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.5000/- in the Temple Trust within 15 days of the receipt of the order. Further one increment of the petitioner was ordered to be withheld for one year without cumulative effect. It is apt to note that respondent No.2 while partly allowing the appeal had returned the findings that there is no carelessness on the part of the petitioner in making the entry of security amount and neither he had concealed the receipt of the amount of Rs.5000/- from which the working system of the petitioner is confirmed to be correct. 6 2026:HHC:28981 5. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.2, filed a Review Petition seeking review of the order dated 10.03.2016 and respondent No.2 after considering the averments made in the Review Petition came to the conclusion that the charges of embezzlement of tender security amount framed against the petitioner are not proved in view of the findings of the enquiry Report submitted by the Chairman (SDM Sadar) Temple Trust Sh. Naina Devi Ji and thus it could not be appropriate to direct the petitioner to deposit Rs.5000/- in the Temple Trust and thus order No.6(ii) issued by his predecessor was quashed and set aside. 6. So far as charge No.2 (order dated 10.03.2016) regarding dereliction of duties and cutting/tempering in the record by the petitioner, is concerned, the findings recorded earlier are sustainable as the petitioner has not argued or challenged this particular finding in the order dated 10.03.2016 in his revision petition. Thus, Order No.6(iii) does not require any revision. 7. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the orders passed by respondent No.3, whereby the penalty was imposed upon him and further the orders passed by 7 2026:HHC:28981 respondent No.2, whereby the order of withholding of one increment for one year without cumulative effect dated 10.03.2016, though has partly been reviewed by order dated 29.12.2016, but the penalty of withholding of one increment has been maintained, has approached this Court inter alia on the grounds that impugned orders under challenge are against law and facts of the case inasmuch as respondent No.2 while passing the order dated 29.12.2016 has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it judiciously and thus prayed for quashing the same. The entire evidence has not been appreciated in right perspective and thus prayed for quashing the orders under challenge. 8. Respondent No.3 filed reply to the petition and supported the orders under challenge. It has been pleaded that on 25.03.2013, the petitioner had sold three tenders to different contractors and security amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rs.5,000/-) from each contractor was collected by him. However, when Vijay Kumar, Recovery Van Contractor applied for refund of security amount of Rs.5,000/-, which was deposited by him on 25.03.2013, it was noticed by the Temple Trust that on the day of tendering three parties tender for three different works, only an amount of 8 2026:HHC:28981 Rs.10,000/- was deposited in the Temple Trust account. On verification, it was found that there is cutting and tempering in the register and the petitioner had failed to explain the embezzlement of Rs.5,000/-. He was served with a show cause notice dated 09.11.2013 regarding embezzlement of Rs.5,000/-, but he failed to explain. Thereafter memorandum of charge sheet was served upon him and after the inquiry, the penalty was imposed upon him. 9. The petitioner had filed the appeal before respondent No.2, who had passed the order on 10.03.2016, which was again sought to be reviewed by him and respondent No.2, vide order dated 29.12.2016 had passed the order that the charges of embezzlement of tender security amount was not proved and thus it was not appropriate to direct him to deposit an amount of Rs.5000/- in the Temple Trust. So far as charge No.2 with respect to dereliction of duties and cutting/tempering in the record by the petitioner is concerned, the same is sustainable as the petitioner has not argued or challenged this particular finding in the order dated 10.03.2016. 10. The petitioner filed the replication to the reply filed by respondent No.3 and controverted the facts. 9 2026:HHC:28981 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 12. It is now settled by catena of judgments that the Courts cannot substitute the penalty imposed upon the delinquent officer by the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority. However, in case the same is in violation of the procedure and the material facts have not been considered by the authorities, the Court can step in and interfere with the penalty imposed, thereby advancing substantial justice to the delinquent officer. In the present case if the order dated 10.03.2016 (Annexure A-2) passed by respondent No.2 is perused, a finding has been returned that the petitioner was neither given time to file written statement in his defence nor opportunity of hearing in person by the Disciplinary Authority was afforded to him. On the same day, the memorandum of charges and appointment of the Enquiry Officer was issued by respondent No.3. Once the petitioner has not been given time to file reply to the memorandum of charge sheet, there is flaw in the enquiry conducted and thereafter penalty imposed upon the petitioner. This finding has not been challenged by the authorities and once the procedure as 10 2026:HHC:28981 prescribed was not followed before appointing the Enquiry Officer and thereafter, issuing the enquiry report to the petitioner before imposing the penalty, the impugned order imposing penalty is not sustainable in law. The findings have been returned by respondent No.2 that the charges of embezzlement of tender security amount framed against the petitioner, have not been proved, in view of the findings/enquiry report submitted by the Chairman of the Temple Trust. It has also been held that it was not appropriate to direct the petitioner to deposit Rs.5,000/- in the Temple Trust. To impose the penalty, the first thing which was required to be proved was that the petitioner had committed any illegality or he had embezzled the amount. 13. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has vehemently argued that since the petitioner did not challenge the finding of dereliction of duties and had acquiesced before respondent No.2, this Court may not likely to interfere with the said order. However, keeping in view the fact that proper procedure was not followed before imposing the penalty, and further the specific finding has been returned by respondent No.2 that the petitioner has 11 2026:HHC:28981 not embezzled the amount, which finding has neither been challenged by the Disciplinary Authority nor the Appellate Authority, the impugned orders passed by respondent No.3 and 2 are not sustainable in law. 14. This Court ordinarily had to remit the matter to the stage, where the illegality was committed, but keeping in view the findings given in favour of the petitioner that the charges of embezzlement of tender security amount have not been proved, in view of the findings/enquiry report submitted by the Chairman of the Temple Trust and thereafter it was held by respondent No.2 that it was not appropriate to direct him to deposit Rs.5,000/- in the Temple Trust, the matter is remitted back to respondent No.2, who shall examine the imposition of penalty of one increment withheld for one year without cumulative effect and take appropriate decision thereupon. While examining the matter, respondent No.2 will also see the effect of the not adopting the procedure. 15. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 25.01.2015 (Annexure A-5) and addendum dated 31.01.2015 issued by respondent No.3 and orders dated 10.03.2016 (Annexure A-2) and 12 2026:HHC:28981 29.12.2016 (Annexure A-4), passed by respondent No.2 are quashed with a direction to respondent No.2 to decide the appeal afresh after hearing the petitioner. No order as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. 13 th July , 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (Anurag) Judge