Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 16486 (HP)

Purna Nand v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2026-04-02

Jiya Lal Bhardwaj

body2026
JUDGMENT : JIYA LAL BHARDWAJ, J. 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:- “(a) Quashing and setting aside the order dated 04.12.2008 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Pr. Secretary (AH) to the Government of H.P. (Respondent No.1) and also the order dated 29.04.2008 (Annexure P-8) passed by respondent No.2. (b) The enquiry report dated 27.06.2007 (Annexure P-7) on the basis of which the penalty is imposed on the petitioner may also be quashed along with the entire proceeding being against procedure and law. (c) The charge sheet dated 1-11-2006 issued by respondent No.2 may also be quashed and set aside.” 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the key facts of the case are that the petitioner, who was working as Animal Husbandry Assistant, was issued a charge-sheet dated 01.11.2006 (Annexure P-2) on two articles of charges, which are as follows:- “Article -I: That Shri Purna Nand, Animal Husbandry Assistant while functioning as Animal Husbandry Assistant at Veterinary Dispensary, Taksal, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, H.P, during the month of October 2005 onwards failed to look after the proper maintenance of his family in contravention of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Article-II: That Shri Purna Nand while functioning as Animal Husbandry Assistant, Veterinary Dispensary Taksal, Distt. Solan, H.P. during the period 10/2005 onwards entered into/contracted remarriage in contravention of Rule, 21 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.” 3. The petitioner filed reply to the charge-sheet and denied the charges. Thereafter, regular enquiry was conducted after following the due process of law. In the enquiry report, a conclusion was drawn by the Enquiry Officer that the petitioner came to the office on 15.12.2006 and made partial confession regarding his first son in the Pariwar Register of Nirmand Panchayat and further his statement that Amit is his son, but he did not know the mother of his son are the basis to conclude that the petitioner had solemnized the second marriage with Smt. Bhadru Devi. 4. After receipt of the enquiry report by the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner was supplied the same and thereafter, vide office order dated 29.04.2008 (Annexure P-8), the Disciplinary Authority had imposed major penalty under Rule 11(vi) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and reverted the petitioner to the lower post of Veterinary Pharmacist in the pay scale of Rs. 4. After receipt of the enquiry report by the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner was supplied the same and thereafter, vide office order dated 29.04.2008 (Annexure P-8), the Disciplinary Authority had imposed major penalty under Rule 11(vi) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and reverted the petitioner to the lower post of Veterinary Pharmacist in the pay scale of Rs. 4400-7000/- with immediate effect and there will be bar to his promotion to the higher post of Animal Husbandry Assistant and further he will be junior most in the final seniority list of Veterinary Pharmacists with immediate effect and will draw minimum pay in the time scale of the post of Veterinary Pharmacist. 5. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the order of penalty dated 29.04.2008 had preferred an appeal which was rejected on 04.12.2008 (Annexure P-9) and the revision petition was thereafter dismissed. 6. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the said orders had preferred the writ petition before this Court bearing CWP No. 3490 of 2012, titled, Purna Nand Sharma versus State of H.P. and others. This Court had disposed the writ petition on 28.02.2013 directing the respondents to hear the petitioner and dispose of the matter on or before 31.03.2013. 7. Thereafter the petitioner was heard on 12.03.2013 and vide office order dated 29.03.2013 (Annexure P-10), respondent No.1 had disposed of the revision petition holding therein that there was no major change in the facts of the case. However, the penalty debarring the petitioner from promotion, in addition to being reduced to starting point of the lower post, is set aside. 8. The petitioner has averred in the writ petition that the charges against him were not proved and further he was not afforded with an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant and other witnesses. The petitioner was summoned by respondent No.3 on 08.05.2007 for recording his statement. The charge-sheet itself is vague, ambiguous, indefinite and incomplete. The Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority have been biased against him throughout the enquiry and since the petitioner has not been afforded proper opportunity to meet with the allegations affecting his valuable rights to defend himself, the enquiry being illegal and unconstitutional be quashed. 9. It has further been averred that the Enquiry Officer himself had prepared the statement dated 08.05.2007 (Annexure P-4) and such statement cannot be held to be legal. 9. It has further been averred that the Enquiry Officer himself had prepared the statement dated 08.05.2007 (Annexure P-4) and such statement cannot be held to be legal. Further the respondents had failed to appreciate the circumstances that after 23-24 years of marriage, all of sudden a complaint was filed by the wife of the petitioner that the petitioner is not looking after the family and the petitioner had contracted second marriage. 10. The respondents filed reply to the petition and averred that the petitioner was found guilty of contracting remarriage in contravention of Rule 21 of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and the respondent-Authority had rightly imposed the major penalty vide order dated 29.04.2008. The petitioner was afforded an opportunity for personal hearing on 12.03.2013 and, therefore, the action does not require any interference by this Court. 11. The petitioner though filed rejoinder to the reply, but simply denied the contents made in the reply. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 13. It is not in dispute that the revision petition preferred by the petitioner was disposed of on 29.03.2013. The petitioner has not laid challenge to the said order, whereby the penalty imposed upon him debarring him from promotion, in relation to being reduced to starting point of lower post was modified. Since the order under challenge passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 29.04.2008 and 04.12.2008 have been merged in the final order dated 29.03.2013, until and unless the said order was questioned, the petitioner could not have been granted any relief. 14. The petitioner though raised many points in the writ petition, but the learned counsel could not support the same by highlighting any violation of the provisions of law not having followed during the course of enquiry. The petitioner has not impleaded the Enquiry Officer by name, who had submitted the enquiry report and thus the allegations of malafide cannot be gone into and further the same have not been substantiated. 15. The petitioner has not impleaded the Enquiry Officer by name, who had submitted the enquiry report and thus the allegations of malafide cannot be gone into and further the same have not been substantiated. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande and another vs. State of Maharashtra and another , AIR 1965 SC 1564 , Kanwal Ram and others vs. The Himachal Pradesh Administration , AIR 1966 SC 614 and Smt. Priya Bala Ghosh vs. Suresh Chandra Ghosh , AIR 1971 SC 1153 and strenuously argued that the marriage has to be proved and since in the present case the marriage has not been proved, the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are unsustainable in law. All these judgments have been delivered while deciding the criminal cases against the accused. It is settled law that in criminal cases the guilt has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, whereas in the enquiry proceedings, the proof is not as that required in the criminal case. Reference in this regard is made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Limited and another , (1999) 3 SCC 679 . The relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced hereunder: “13. As we shall presently see, there is a consensus of judicial opinion amongst the High Courts whose decisions we do not intend to refer to in this case, and the various pronouncements of this Court, which shall be copiously referred to, on the basic principle that proceedings in a criminal case and the departmental proceedings can proceed simultaneously with a little exception. As we understand, the basis for this proposition is that proceedings in a criminal case and the departmental proceedings operate in proceedings, where a charge relating to misconduct is being investigated, the factors operating in the mind of the disciplinary authority may be many such as enforcement of discipline or to investigate the level of integrity of the delinquent or the other staff, the standard of proof required in those proceedings is also different than that required in a criminal case. While in the departmental proceedings the standard of proof is one of preponderance of the probabilities, in a criminal case, the charge has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. While in the departmental proceedings the standard of proof is one of preponderance of the probabilities, in a criminal case, the charge has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The little exception may be where the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings is common without there being a variance.” 16. The findings in the enquiry are based on the principle of preponderance of probabilities. In the present case, the Enquiry Officer had returned positive findings that the petitioner had solemnized the second marriage during subsistence of first marriage. This conclusion has been drawn on the basis of the statement of the petitioner who admitted that Amit is his son, but he does not know his mother. First wife of the petitioner has deposed that Amit is not her son. Not only this there is another son namely Aman, who too was born out of the wedlock of the petitioner with second wife Bhadru Devi. 17. The other grounds that the charge-sheet is vague, no proper opportunity given to the petitioner and enquiry is illegal, are also not supported by any tangible material placed on record. 18. This Court while interfering with the order of Disciplinary Authority cannot go into the evidence and the facts recorded in the enquiry report. 19. Admittedly, in the present case, the Enquiry Officer had returned the findings that the petitioner had contracted second marriage during the subsistence of first marriage. The Disciplinary Authority on the basis of the findings returned by the Enquiry Officer had imposed the penalty which was later on modified by the revisional authority and the said order has not been questioned by the petitioner, though placed on record. 20. The scope of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the penalty is very limited. This Court can quash the order of penalty only in case there is flagrant violation of the procedure either adopted by the Enquiry Officer or by the Disciplinary Authority. In the present case, the Enquiry Officer had not exonerated the petitioner and thus, the Disciplinary Authority was not supposed to assign separate reasons while imposing the penalty. 21. This Court can quash the order of penalty only in case there is flagrant violation of the procedure either adopted by the Enquiry Officer or by the Disciplinary Authority. In the present case, the Enquiry Officer had not exonerated the petitioner and thus, the Disciplinary Authority was not supposed to assign separate reasons while imposing the penalty. 21. As already noticed above, the Enquiry Officer returned positive findings that the petitioner had contracted the second marriage during subsistence of first marriage and this Court cannot sit as an Appellate Court to alter the said findings, especially when no material has been placed on record to show that the said findings are perverse and not based on the material collected during the enquiry. 22. It is now settled by catena of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the Disciplinary Authority is not required to assign reasons, if the Enquiry Officer has returned the findings that the charges are proved. 23. A reference in this regard is made to the judgment in Boloram Bordoloi vs. Lakhimi Gaolia Bank and others , (2021) 3 SCC 806 and relevant para is reproduced hereunder: “11. We are of the view that the judgment of this Court in ECIL is not helpful to the case of the appellant. Further, it is well settled that if the disciplinary authority accepts the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and passes an order, no detailed reasons are required to be recorded in the order imposing punishment. The punishment is imposed based on the findings recorded in the enquiry report, as such, no further elaborate reasons are required to be given by the disciplinary authority. As the departmental appeal was considered by the Board of Directors in the meeting held on 10-12-2005, the Board's decision is communicated vide order dated 21-12-2005 in Ref. No. LGB/I&V/Appeal/31/02/2005-06. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the orders impugned are devoid of reasons.” 24. The scope of interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is also very limited as propounded by a three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh and others vs. S. Sree Rama Rao , AIR 1963 SC 1723 . The scope of interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is also very limited as propounded by a three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh and others vs. S. Sree Rama Rao , AIR 1963 SC 1723 . It has clearly laid down that this Court is not constituted in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution a Court of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant and further review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. Relevant paragraph whereof reads as under:- “7. There is no warrant for the view expressed by the High Court that in considering whether a public officer is guilty of the misconduct charged against him, the rule followed in criminal trials that an offence is not established unless proved by evidence beyond reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of the Court, must be applied, and if that rule be not applied, the High Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is competent to declare the order of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry invalid. The High Court is not constituted in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution a Court of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant: it is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf, and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. Where there is some the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and evidence, which the authority entrusted with which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court in a petition for a writ under Article 226 to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. The High Court may undoubtedly interfere where the departmental authorities have held the proceedings against the delinquent in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair decision by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and the merits of the case or by allowing themselves to be influenced by irrelevant considerations or where the conclusion on the very face of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at that conclusion, or on similar grounds. But the departmental authorities are, if the enquiry is otherwise properly held, the sole judges of facts and if there be some legal evidence on which their findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in a proceeding for a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution” 25. The petitioner has not challenged the order dated 29.03.2013 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Revisional Authority, whereby the penalty initially imposed upon him by the Disciplinary Authority has been modified. Thus, once the petitioner has accepted the penalty modified by the Revisional Authority, this Court, while exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot quash the said order, especially when the petitioner himself has placed on record the said order as Annexure P-10, which was passed in sequel to the directions given by this Court. 26. The petitioner cannot be said to be naive person and further once he had already approached this Court, he knows the intricacies of law. 27. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, I do not find any merit in the petition. The orders passed by the authorities below do not suffer from any illegality or perversity inasmuch as the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is as per his misconduct and the penalty imposed cannot be said to be disproportionate to the charges framed against him. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no orders as to cost. 28. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.