( 2026:HHC:34197 THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No.35 of 2024 Reserved on: 10.08.2026 Decided on :14.08.2026 Uploaded on:14.08.2026 Sanjeev Kumar ...Appellant Versus State of HP and others …Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant: Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Sr. Advocate, with Ms. Supriya Chaudhary and Mr. Shubham Singh Guleria, Advocates. For the respondents: Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 31st August, 2023, passed in CWPOA No. 7396 of 2019, whereby the writ petition preferred by the present appellant has been dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Vide office order dated 13th November, 2009, the writ petitioner/appellant in the case at hand had been appointed to the post of Clerk on a contract basis on account of his mother dying in 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? -2- harness (Annexure A-2, appointment order is at page 11 of the writ record). The terms and conditions of the contract have not been placed on record by either side. Subsequent thereto, vide show-cause notice dated March, 2016 (Annexure A-9, page 21 of the writ record), the writ petitioner/appellant was informed that the 10+2 certificate submitted by the writ petitioner/appellant at the time of appointment had been found to be fake on verification. In the show-cause notice, it was categorically asserted that an inquiry qua the verification and genuineness of the 10+2 certificate submitted by the writ petitioner/appellant at the time of appointment had been made from the Deputy Director (Evaluation), National Institute of Open Schooling, Noida (UP), by the department as well as the Principal, GSSS Kungrat, District Una. The Deputy Director, NIOS, had informed that the certificate bearing Roll No. 20224012 submitted by the writ petitioner/appellant was not found in their record. By virtue of the show-cause notice, the writ petitioner/appellant was directed to submit his response and to explain the writ petitioner's/appellant's position and as to why the writ petitioner/appellant's services be not terminated. 4. Response thereto was filed and is dated 23.3.2016. The same is placed on record in the writ record as Annexure A-10 (page 22 of the writ record). In response, it was categorically asserted that the J.R. Model School, Mehatpur, District Una, wherefrom the writ -3- petitioner/appellant had passed his 10+2, is very much in existence and hence there is no likelihood of the certificate so submitted, bearing Roll No. 20224012, to be fake. Besides the aforesaid, it was submitted in the response that merely the certificate being not found in the record would not make the certificate submitted by the writ petitioner/appellant fake. Other than the aforesaid, it was asserted in the response that there was no occasion for the writ petitioner/appellant for obtaining a fake certificate for getting the job in question. 5. From a perusal of the order dated 2nd May, 2016 (Annexure A-11, page 26 of the writ paper book), which had been assailed before the learned Single Judge, it is evident that on consideration of the reply (Annexure A-10) submitted to the show- cause notice (Annexure A-9), the Director, Higher Education, terminated the services of the writ petitioner/appellant with immediate effect. On 06.10.2025, we had passed the following order:- “A perusal of the paper book would go on to show that the petitioner was appointed on 13.11.2009 on contract basis as Clerk. Without holding any inquiry as such, his services have been terminated on 02.05.2016 on the basis of a show cause notice dated 10.03.2016. The reason which prevailed with the authorities as such was that the 10+2 certificate as such was a fake certificate, as he passed his examination from the Central J.R. Model School, Mehatpur. Verification was done on 28.06.2010 from the National Institute of Open School, which was found confirmed on 16.08.2010. Apparently, the mother of the employee had died and he applied in the year 2007 and got the appointment on compassionate basis. 2. Counsel has submitted that the initial certificate is dated 29.06.2002 (Annexure A-5) and, therefore, it was not his intention as such to cheat the State for the purpose of -4- getting employment. Petitioner had passed his matriculation in the year 1993 from the Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education (page-79 of the writ/OA record). It is thus contended that the petitioner is willing to get an appointment on the Class-IV post on the basis of the matriculation certificate as he has already served for 7 years before his services were terminated. 3. Counsel for the state, on the other hand, has brought to our notice that even the relief as such, in the CWPOA was on the basis that he had matriculation certificate, which was the essential qualification in the year 2007 and the Rules were amended thereafter and 10+2 was introduced in the year 2008. Thus there is a candid admission that he did not have the 10+2 certificate, which was the basic requirement as per Annexure-A of the appointment letter. However, the fact remains is that without holding a proper departmental inquiry, his services have been dispensed with, which aspect was not examined. Keeping in view the balance of convenience and the hardship as such, we are of the considered opinion that it is open for the State to consider whether the appellant is liable to be given a fresh appointment as Class-IV and for the period he had already served, the same period could be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits only. 4. Accordingly, we defer proceedings for the competent authority to decide the said issue since on the basis of apparent lack of procedure not being followed of holding a departmental inquiry and dispensing with his services on the basis of show cause notice, the said order of the termination would also be liable to be interfered with which the competent authority should keep in mind. While taking call on the said case, the matriculation certificate, which is also prima facie ambiguous be also firstly verified.” 6. The State however, did not accede to the same and on 01.07.2026, we passed the following order:- “Counsel for the respondents-State has placed on record the communication dated 22.06.2026 stating that the appellant case would be considered for Class-IV (Multi Task Worker) as and when the Policy and terms & conditions are finalized to fill up the vacant posts of Class-IV employees. Counsel for the appellant submits that the services of the appellant were terminated on 02.05.2016 (Annexure A-11) without holding a proper enquiry, even though the appointment was made on contractual basis vide order dated 13.11.2009. Accordingly, as the proper procedure for holding an enquiry was not followed, he prays for time to cite necessary case laws.” -5- 7. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, the question which arises for consideration is as to whether the termination order dated 2nd May, 2016 (Annexure A-11), which is stigmatic in nature, could have been passed in the case of an employee engaged on a contract (writ petitioner/appellant) without holding a regular inquiry. It is no longer res-integra that when an order is stigmatic in nature, as is in the case at hand, then in that eventuality, even a contract employee whose services are terminated on account of misconduct is entitled to holding of a regular inquiry. In this respect, reference can be made to the judgment passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 1666 of 2017, titled State of H.P. and others vs. Dr. Parvesh Thakur, decided on 24.8.2020, judgements of the Apex Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and others vs. Brijesh Kumar and another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282, Swati Priyadarshini vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 128, and judgment passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court (which was authored by one of us, G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice) in CMP(M) No. 1811 of 2025 and LPA No. 816 of 2025, decided on 28.11.2025, titled State of H.P. and others vs. Arun Kang and others, relevant extract whereof reads as follow:- “16. Thus, it is in such circumstances, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the order is stigmatic in nature and we do not find any plausible reasons to take a different view especially, keeping in view the fact that in Birjesh Kumar’s case (supra), the workman was serving as -6- contract conductor and his services had been terminated on account of mis-conduct without holding any regular inquiry. The Apex Court had only interfered to the extent of the judgment that the High Court should not have directed that the appointment on compassionate basis could not be held permanent in nature but the quashing of the termination was upheld. 17. Similarly, in Swati Priyadarshini’s case (supra), the employee as such was working on contract basis and on account of the complaint as such, the contract services had been terminated. Resultanlty, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the order holding the termination order stigmatic in nature. The Division Bench had allowed the appeal and the same was set aside by the Apex Court by giving the liberty to the State as such to proceed in accordance with law regarding the disciplinary proceedings as such and therefore the law stands settled beyond every anvil of doubt and there is no scope as such to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the learned Single Judge.” 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has placed reliance upon the judgment in W.P. No. 12186 of 2016, Ravinder Kushil vs. Union of India and another, decided on 13th February, 2018, a Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court, wherein services of a contract employee had been terminated post issuance of a show-cause notice, whereupon a reply was filed which was found to be unsatisfactory. 9. No regular inquiry was held in Ravinder Kushil’s case. The aforesaid judgment is clearly distinguishable as in paragraph 11 of the service agreement entered into between the employer and employee therein, it had been categorically mentioned that the employer could terminate the contractual engagement after affording the employee an opportunity to show cause. -7- 10. Other than the aforesaid, reliance has been placed upon the judgment delivered by a learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 26612 of 2021, titled Atul Mishra vs. Union of India and others, decided on 5th April, 2024. Therein the petitioner was not a confirmed employee, he was under probation and his appointment was admittedly under investigation and prima-facie the allegation against him was about obtaining appointment by fraud and submitting fake and false document hence, the court was of the view that no regular inquiry was required. Other than the aforesaid, the court therein observed that it was not a case of termination on the ground of misconduct, but it was a case of cancellation of appointment, as the same was obtained by committing fraud and hence under the existing circumstances, the petitioner was provided opportunities to substantiate that the certificate on the basis of which he obtained appointment was genuine and allegation about its correctness was not proper, but nothing was done by the petitioner to rebut the said allegation. On the contrary he had adopted dilatory tactics just to show that he was not granted proper opportunity although that could have been done by him by submitting original documents before the authority and even before the Court. In the said facts the court held that the certificate of experience produced by petitioner cannot be said to be a valid document. Hence on facts the case is distinguishable. -8- 11. In the aforesaid backdrop, it would be appropriate to refer to the Apex Court judgement in R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala, (2004) 2 SCC 105 (three Judges), wherein the petitioner was recruited to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police against a seat reserved/meant for Scheduled Caste. On the basis of a complaint received, a full-fledged inquiry was ordered into the caste status of the petitioner. The petitioner was served with a notice. He participated in the enquiry. After examining both the oral and documentary evidence, it was concluded that the petitioner did not belong to the Scheduled Caste community, as claimed. Besides the aforesaid, the case of the petitioner was referred to a Scrutiny Committee constituted in pursuance to the Apex Court judgement in Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commr., Tribal Development by the Government of Kerala. The Scrutiny Committee rejected the claim of the petitioner. The decision of the Scrutiny Committee was upheld till the Apex Court. 12. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an O.A. before the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking direction against the respondents not to terminate the services of the petitioner based on the proceedings of the Scrutiny Committee, and also not to terminate the services without satisfying the conditions laid down in Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The Central Administrative Tribunal allowed the OA and directed that the services of the petitioner be not terminated without following the procedure laid down in Article 311 of the Constitution and also -9- under the Rules. The said decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal was challenged before the High Court. The High Court reversed the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. 13. The Apex Court was of the view that the genuineness of the caste certificate in the case at hand had been examined in detail twice. On both occasions, the petitioner was given due opportunity to defend himself. The order passed by the Scrutiny Committee was upheld by the High Court and later on by the Apex Court. In the aforesaid backdrop, the Apex Court held that the safeguard provided in Article 311 of the Constitution i.e that a government servant should not be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank without holding an inquiry in which he has been given an opportunity to defend himself stood complied with in the case at hand. Other than the aforesaid, the Apex Court held that where an appointment in a service has been acquired by practising fraud or deceit, such an appointment is no appointment in law, in service, in such a situation Article 311 of the Constitution is not attracted at all and that equity jurisdiction cannot be exercised in the case of a person who got the appointment on the basis of a false caste certificate by playing a fraud. 14. In the aforesaid factual and legal matrix,the genuineness of the 10+2 certificate in the case at hand has not been examined in a regular inquiry wherein the petitioner would be given due opportunity to defend himself therefore, the impugned order dated 2nd May, 2016, -10- Annexure P-11, is quashed and set aside as non-compliance of rules of natural justice visits the appellant with serious civil consequences. Resultantly, the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 31.08.2023 is set aside and the writ petition filed by the appellant is allowed. This, however, will not prevent the respondents from taking action in accordance with law as no person should be allowed to keep an advantage which has been obtained by fraud. (See Ram Preeti Yadav v. U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education [(2003) 8 SCC 311). The period during which the petitioner/appellant remained out of service as a consequence of the termination order will however, only be notionally counted towards the service benefits. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed and disposed of in the above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) (Bipin Chander Negi) Chief Justice Judge 14th August, 2026 (Tarun Singh)