IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No.404 of 2026 Decided on : 20.08.2026 HRTC and Anr. ...appellants. Versus Shiv Raj …Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellants : Mr. Virender Singh, Advocate. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge By way of the present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment/order passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition preferred by the present respondent has been allowed and the order of removal passed by the appellant herein against the present respondent dated 23.12.2019 (Annexure P-9) has been quashed, so also the order passed in appeal dated 22.08.2020 (Annexure P-11) affirming the initial order of removal and the order passed in review dated 15.11.2021 (Annexure P-13) passed by the appellate authority. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes -2- 2. Heard counsel for the appellant and perused the pleadings. 3. The respondent in the case at hand was engaged as a driver in the appellant-Corporation in the year 1992. On 22.03.2011, the respondent herein had been deployed to drive the bus of the appellant-Corporation on the Hamirpur–Amritsar route. On the said date, while driving bus bearing registration No HP-67-1811, the aforesaid bus met with an accident. As a consequence, FIR No.45 dated 23.03.2011 was registered at Police Station Division No.8, Jalandhar. 3. On conclusion of investigation, challan was filed. In pursuance thereto, charges under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) were framed against the present respondent. The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandhar, on conclusion of trial, convicted the respondent herein and awarded a sentence for a period of three months under Section 279 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years along with a fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default of payment of fine, the respondent was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 15 days under Section 304-A IPC, vide judgment dated 29.01.2016. -3- 4. In appeal bearing No. 22 of 2016 preferred before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, the conviction and sentence were upheld vide judgement dated 02.11.2016. The respondent was ordered to be taken into custody. Accordingly, the respondent remained in imprisonment with effect from 02.11.2016 to 08.02.2017 (a period of 3 months and 14 days). On a further challenge to the same before the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, the punishment was reduced to sentence already undergone as is evident from judgement dated 30.01.2017 (Annexure P-1). 5. In the aforesaid backdrop, departmental proceedings were initiated against the present respondent under Rule 14 of the CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965. The respondent was charge-sheeted vide memo No. 4241 dated 30.08.2011. Thereafter, the case was entrusted to an Inquiry Officer for conducting a regular inquiry into the charges leveled against the respondent vide letter dated 23.11.2011. 6. The Inquiry Officer submitted his findings of the inquiry into the charges framed against the respondent vide inquiry report bearing No.1786 dated 28.06.2019. During the inquiry, charges leveled were stated to have been proved -4- against the respondent as per the written confessional statement of the respondent. 7. In the said backdrop, a show-cause notice dated 08.07.2019 was issued to the respondent for imposition of a major penalty. Response thereto was filed by the respondent dated 18.07.2019. The same was considered and the respondent was heard in person on 08.08.2019. Based on the reply filed and the hearing afforded to the respondent, a penalty of recovery of Rs.6,000/- from the salary of the respondent was ordered to be imposed. 8. The same is evident from office order dated 14.08.2019 (Annexure P-5 at page 111 of the paper book) issued by the Manager (Technical), HRTC, Hamirpur. The amount of Rs. 6,000/- was deducted from the salary for the month of August, 2019, a fact evident from the certificate issued in this respect (Annexure P-6 at page 112). 9. Vide memorandum dated 13.12.2019 (Annexure P-7 at page 114 of the paper book), the respondent was asked to show cause by the Divisional Manager, HRTC, Hamirpur, as to why penalty under Rule 19 of the CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 be not imposed on the respondent for having concealed the fact that he remained in custody with effect -5- from 02.11.2016 to 08.02.2017 (3 months and 14 days). A response to the show-cause was filed on 19.12.2019. 10. Thereafter Divisional Manager, HRTC, Hamirpur, ordered removal vide office order dated 23.12.2019 (Annexure P-9). The appeal preferred against the same was dismissed vide office order dated 22.08.2020 (Annexure P-11) by the Managing Director, HRTC. The review preferred was also rejected by the Managing Director, HRTC, vide order dated 15.11.2021 (Annexure P-13). 11. The learned Single Judge set aside the order of removal dated 23.12.2019 (Annexure P-9), the appellate order dated 22.08.2020 (Annexure P-11) affirming the removal and the order passed in review dated 15.11.2021 (Annexure P-13) passed by the appellate authority on the ground that conviction does not entail an automatic removal under Rule 19(1) of the CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965. According to the learned Single Judge, when an employer exercises his right to remove an employee from service without an inquiry solely on the ground of, concealing the fact that the employee remained in custody, the employer has to consider relevant factors like nature and gravity of offence, impact of conviction on service, suitability of employee in service after conviction. Besides -6- the competent authority is expected to exercise its power under the provision after due caution, considerable application of mind and has to consider that the conduct of the employee was such as warrants imposition of penalty. 12. To arrive at the aforesaid conclusion, reliance has been placed by the learned Single Judge upon Pawan Kumar v. Union of India and Anr., (2023) 12 SCC 317 and judgment dated 06.03.2023 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in CWPOA No. 6429 of 2019, titled as Mohinder Singh v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors. 13. In order to understand the scope and ambit of Rule 19 reliance can gainfully be made to the pronouncement of the apex court in Union of India v. Sunil Kumar Sarkar, (2001) 3 SCC 414 wherein Rule 19 was considered by the apex court. Therein it was held that the basis of imposing pun- ishment under Rule 19 is a prior conviction on a criminal charge. Hence the disciplinary authority under Rule 19 is to be satisfied on the aforesaid account. Besides the aforesaid, the convicted government servant has to be given a show-cause notice on the penalty proposed to be imposed with sufficient -7- opportunity to file a reply. The reply given to such show-cause notice, if any, should be properly considered. While consider- ing the disciplinary authority has to keep in mind the gravity of the conviction suffered before passing any order under Rule 19 to maintain the proportionality of punishment. Procedure detailed in Rule 19 of the Central Rules is contemplated in the Constitution itself as could be seen in Article 311(2)(a). The relevant extract whereof reads as under; “8. The Division Bench also found fault with the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority on the ground that the same was solely based on the conviction suffered by the respondent in the court-martial proceedings. The Court in this regard held that the disciplinary authority had a predetermined mind when he passed the order of dismissal. Here again, in our opinion, the Division Bench did not take into consideration Rule 19 of the Central Rules which contemplates that if any penalty is imposed on a government servant on his conviction in a criminal charge, the disciplinary authority can make such order as it deems fit (dismissal from service is one such order contemplated under Rule 19) on initiating disciplinary proceedings and after giving the delinquent officer an opportunity of making a representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed. As a matter of fact, this type of disciplinary procedure is contemplated in the Constitution itself as could be seen in Article 311(2)(a). Rule 19 of the Central Rules is in conformity with the above provisions of -8- the Constitution. This, as we see, is a summary procedure provided to take disciplinary action against a government servant who is already convicted in a criminal proceeding. The very foundation of imposing punishment under Rule 19 is that there should be a prior conviction on a criminal charge. Therefore, the question of having a predetermined mind does not arise in such cases. All that a disciplinary authority is expected to do under Rule 19 is to be satisfied that the officer concerned has been convicted of a criminal charge and has been given a show-cause notice and reply to such show-cause notice, if any, should be properly considered before making any order under this Rule. Of course, it will have to bear in mind the gravity of the conviction suffered by the government servant in the criminal proceedings before passing any order under Rule 19 to maintain the proportionality of punishment. In the instant case, the disciplinary authority has followed the procedure laid down in Rule 19, hence, we cannot agree with the Division Bench that the said disciplinary authority had any predetermined mind when it passed the order of dismissal.” 14. From a perusal of the removal order and the order passed in appeal affirming the dismissal/removal order, it is evident that conspicuous by absence is the consideration of any of the aforesaid stated factors, detailed supra in paragraph-11, required to be taken into consideration while dealing with the question of concealment of the fact qua the -9- employee remaining in custody for which the show cause notice in the case at hand had been issued and the gravity of the conviction suffered by the government servant in the criminal proceedings before passing any order under Rule 19 to maintain the proportionality of punishment as held in Union of India v. Sunil Kumar Sarkar (supra). Hence, the orders have been correctly set aside by the learned Single Judge, and there is no infirmity or illegality calling for interference by this Court. 15. Besides the aforesaid in the case at hand, a regular inquiry under Rule 14 had been initiated. The same had concluded with the imposition of a penalty of Rs.6,000/- on the present respondent. The said amount had also been recovered from the salary of the respondent. Hence, it has been correctly observed by the learned Single Judge that there was no occasion for the present appellants to have initiated proceedings under Rule 19. 16. Thus, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has not erred in any manner in allowing the writ petition and we do not find any plausible reason to take a different view. Resultantly, the present Letters Patent -10- Appeal, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 20th August, 2026 (Gaurav Rawat)