Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 16568 (HP)

Sanjeev Mahajan v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2026-03-18

Ajay Mohan Goel

body2026
JUDGMENT : AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J. 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “a) Issue an appropriate writ for quashing and setting aside the order dated 15.02.2025 (Annexure P-4) ordering a fresh/de-novo departmental enquiry against the petitioners. b) That the de-novo enquiry may be held illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the law as laid down in Indira Thakur’s case.” 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that in terms of office order dated 17.07.2023 (Annexure P-1), the Principal Secretary, Public Works Government of Himachal Pradesh initiated disciplinary action against the petitioners by way of common proceedings for the alleged negligence on their part in the construction of a bridge, while they remain posted in Kangra Division of the Public Works Department. Memorandum dated 17.07.2023 contained the statement of Article of Charges and statement of imputation of misconduct and the petitioners were called upon to submit their reply. Feeling dissatisfied with the reply filed by the petitioners, common disciplinary proceedings were initiated under Rule 14 and Rule 18 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and Sh. Jatinder Singh, Chief Engineer, HPPWD Hamirpur Zone, District Hamirpur was appointed as the Inquiry Officer vide order dated 03.11.2023, Annexure P-2. After the inquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Officer and he submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority, the Disciplinary Authority, in terms of Annexure P-4, order dated 15.02.2025 passed the following order:- “2. WHEREAS, vide order dated 03.11.2023, Sh. Jatinder Singh, the then Chief Engineer, HPPWD Hamirpur Zone and Sh. Yoginder Singh, Superintendent Gr.-I, O/o Chief Engineer, HPPWD Hamirpur Zone were appointed as Inquiring Authority and Presenting Officer respectively to proceed further to conduct enquiry with regard to the charges leveled against the charged officer(s)/officials(s): 3. WHEREAS, the above mentioned Inquiry Officer had furnished enquiry report on 09.08.2024 and the same has been considered by the Disciplinary authority and decided to conduct further de-novo enquiry through the Commissioner, Departmental Enquiries and to appoint new Presenting Officer to present the case in support of articles of charges framed against the charged officer(s)/official(s); 4. WHEREAS, the above mentioned Inquiry Officer had furnished enquiry report on 09.08.2024 and the same has been considered by the Disciplinary authority and decided to conduct further de-novo enquiry through the Commissioner, Departmental Enquiries and to appoint new Presenting Officer to present the case in support of articles of charges framed against the charged officer(s)/official(s); 4. AND WHEREAS, the matter was taken up the matter with the Vigilance Department to entrust said enquiry to the Commissioner, Departmental Enquiries and the Vigilance Department vide their letter dated 03.02.2025 has advised this department to entrust the said enquiry to the Commissioner, Departmental Enquiries by appointing the Presenting Officer for Public Works Department as per the procedure prescribed under the Vigilance Manual & CCS(CCA) Rules; and 5. THEREFORE, the Governor, Himachal Pradesh, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub rule (5) of Rule 14 read with rule-15 of the said Rules, hereby appoints District Attorney (Vigilance). Headquarter Shimla as the Presenting Officer for Public Works Department to present the case on behalf of Governor, in support of the articles of charges.” 3. Objections were filed by the petitioners against the de-novo inquiry, ordered by the Disciplinary Authority vide Annexure P-5 and thereafter, they also filed objections before the Commissioner, Departmental Enquiries, who in terms of Annexure P-6, order dated 08.08.2025, has dismissed the objections and hence the petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners took the Court through various orders appended with the petition and submitted that both Annexures P-4 and P-6 are not sustainable in the eyes of law for the reason that the Disciplinary Authority could not have ordered de-novo inquiry in light of the law settled on the issue by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in K.R. DEB Versus THE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SHILLONG, as followed by this Court also in Krishnu Ram versus Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education, 2022 SCC Online HP 5403. Accordingly, he prayed that as the order of holding a de-novo inquiry is per se bad, the same be quashed and set aside and further, as the objections against the holding of the de-novo inquiry have been wrongly dismissed by the Commissioner, Departmental Enquiries, said order be also set aside. 5. Accordingly, he prayed that as the order of holding a de-novo inquiry is per se bad, the same be quashed and set aside and further, as the objections against the holding of the de-novo inquiry have been wrongly dismissed by the Commissioner, Departmental Enquiries, said order be also set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General, by placing reliance on the contents of CMP No.4447 of 2026, that as after the completion of the inquiry proceedings, the Inquiry Officer submitted the inquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority, the Disciplinary Authority upon examination of the record, formed a tentative view that owing to the procedural, technical and substantive irregularities/deficiencies, further steps in the nature of further inquiry were required and it is in this backdrop that order dated 15.02.2025 (Annexure P-4), was passed by the Disciplinary Authority. He further submitted that though the words de-novo inquiries are mentioned in this order, but stricto sensu what was ordered, was not a de-novo inquiry. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners as also learned Additional Advocate General and having gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith, this Court is of the considered view that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 15.02.2025 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 7. A perusal of order dated 15.02.2025 demonstrates that the Disciplinary Authority observed therein that upon the consideration of the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority had decided to conduct “further de-novo inquiry” through the Commissioner Departmental Enquiries and also to appoint a new Presenting Officer to present the case in support of the Article of Charges framed against the charged Officers/Officials. 8. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in K.R. DEB Vs. Collector of Central Excise Shillong (supra) while interpreting Rule 15 of the CCS Rules, was pleased to hold that Rule 15 on the face of it, really provides for one inquiry, but it may be possible, if in a particular case there has been no proper inquiry because some serious defects have crept into the inquiry or such important witnesses were not available at the time of the inquiry or were not examined for some other reason, the Disciplinary Authority may ask the Inquiry Officer to record further evidence. Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that however, there was no provision in Rule 15 for completely setting aside previous inquiries, on the ground that the report of the Inquiring Officer or Officers does not appeal to the Disciplinary Authority. 9. Thus, it is evident from the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that if upon the receipt of the report from the Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority is not satisfied, then, it may call upon the Inquiry Officer to do something further in the matter in terms of what is mentioned in its judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, but, the Disciplinary Authority cannot set aside the previous inquiry as also the report of the Inquiry Officer so as to order a de-novo inquiry. This judgment has been followed by this Court in Krishnu Ram versus Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education and in the said judgment, this Court has held as under:- “8. A perusal of the said Rule thus demonstrates that in a case where the Disciplinary Authority is not the Inquiring Authority, then on receipt of the Inquiry Report, the Disciplinary Authority shall forward or cause to be forwarded a copy of the report with its own together with its own tentative reasons for disagreement, if any, with the findings of the Inquiring Authority or any article of charge to the Government servant who shall be required to submit, if he so desires his representation or submission to the Disciplinary Authority. 9. Thus, careful perusal of Rule 15 (2) demonstrates that there is no power conferred upon the Disciplinary Authority that upon receipt of the Inquiry Report, the Authority can order the holding of a de-novo inquiry, if the report of the Inquiring Officer does not appeals to the Disciplinary Authority. 10. Now in this backdrop, this Court would first refer to the impugned order, in terms whereof the Disciplinary Authority has ordered the de-novo inquiry. The order has already been quoted in extensio hereinabove. A perusal of the order demonstrates that the reasons which weighed with the Disciplinary Authority while ordering de -novo inquiry were (a) Inquiry Officer failed to appreciate the documentary evidence present in the case, (b) Inquiry Officer failed to give his assessment of evidence in respect of each charge, (c) Inquiry Officer failed to give reasons for his findings on each charge. It is on the premises of these three principles that the Disciplinary Authority held that there should be a de-novo inquiry into the charges. Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.R. Deb (supra) has clearly held that Rule 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules provides only for one inquiry, however, in a particular case where there has been no proper inquiry, then, the Disciplinary Authority may ask the Inquiring Officer to record further evidence. 11. In Union of India v. P. Thayagarajan (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court after taking note of its judgment in K.R. Deb (Supra) further explains that the Disciplinary Authority may ask the Inquiring Officer to record further evidence where there has been no proper inquiry, because of some serious defects having crept into the inquiry or some important witness not being available at the time of inquiry. But, said provisions would not enable the Disciplinary Authority to set aside the previous inquiry on the ground that the report of the Inquiring Officer does not appeals to the Disciplinary Authority. Thereafter, Hon'ble Supreme Court by referring to the facts involved in the case before it went on to hold that the basis on which the Disciplinary Authority set aside the inquiry in that case was that the procedure adopted by the Inquiring Officer was contrary to the relevant Rules which affected the rights of the party. 12. Incidentally, therein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with the Disciplinary Proceedings, which stood initiated under the provisions of C.R.P.F. Act, 1949 and Rules framed thereunder and while interpreting Rule 27 (c), Hon'ble Supreme Court held that said Rule enabled the Disciplinary Authority to record his findings on the report and to pass appropriate order including ordering a de-novo inquiry in a case of the nature which was before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, from what has been taken note of hereinabove, this Court can safely conclude that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. P. Thayagarajan (supra), was in the background of the facts before it, but the law which initially settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.R. Deb (supra) case has not been disturbed. 13. Therefore, from what has been taken note of hereinabove, this Court can safely conclude that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. P. Thayagarajan (supra), was in the background of the facts before it, but the law which initially settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.R. Deb (supra) case has not been disturbed. 13. It is also relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench in Indira Thakur v. State of H.P. (supra), in which the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench after placing reliance on K.R. Deb (supra) as also Union of India v. P. Thayagarajan (supra), held that the holding of the de-novo inquiry was bad in law and respondents therein directed to take the Inquiry Report submitted by the Inquiry Officer to its logical conclusion. 14. Accordingly, in view of what has been observed hereinabove, this writ petition is allowed and order dated 05.01.2012 (Annexure P-10), in terms whereof the Disciplinary Authority has ordered the holding of de-novo inquiry is ordered to be quashed and set aside and so also the subsequent order of appointment of the representing officer dated 02.03.2012 (Annexure P-11), as this Court holds that the Disciplinary Authority cannot order 'de-novo inquiry'. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner was charge sheeted as far back as in the year 2010 and that the petitioner has now superannuated from service, in the peculiar facts of the case, this Court does not deems it proper to grant liberty to the Department concerned to proceed against the petitioner on the basis of the Inquiry Report already submitted, as the same will cause prejudice to the petitioner, more so in view of the fact that now the petitioner being no more in service, it may be difficult for him to defend himself in the Disciplinary Proceedings.” 10. Therefore, in light of the fact that in the present case, in terms of the impugned order dated 15.02.2025, the Disciplinary Authority, being dissatisfied with the report of the Inquiry Officer, directed conduct of a de-novo inquiry, said order, being bad in law and in conflict with the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on the issue, is set aside. Accordingly, the Disciplinary Authority is directed to take the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer to its logical conclusion, though, in terms of the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. As a result of the order dated 17.07.2023, passed by the Disciplinary Authority being set aside by this Court, the order passed by the Commissioner, Departmental Enquiries dated 08.08.2025, is also quashed and set aside. 11. Petition stands disposed of, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.