( 2026:HHC:39226-DB ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 7454/2021 Decided on: 15.09.2026 Dharam Chand …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. ……………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J The petitioner, who superannuated on 30.06.2019 as Project Director, ATMA, Chamba, District Chamba, was not being paid his full pension and was being paid only provisional pension. Additionally, an amount of Rs. 1,82,395/- had also been withheld by the respondents from his retirement dues. The said amount was kept in the shape of Fixed Deposit Receipts. The representations submitted by the petitioner for redressal of his grievances did not yield any result. Compelled, at the age of 60 years, he instituted the present writ petition on 22.11.2021, essentially seeking to quash the orders passed by respondent No. 2, Director of Agriculture, whereby 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 ( 2026:HHC:39226-DB ) his retirement dues had been withheld on account of the departmental inquiry conducted against the petitioner. 2. Heard & considered the case file. 3. From the pleadings of the parties, the following factual position emerges:- 3(i) The petitioner was serving as Subject Matter Specialist in the year 2014, when the Additional Chief Secretary, Agriculture (respondent No. 1), issued a memorandum of charge-sheet to him under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The charge-sheet related to GI wire, which was found short on measurement. It appears that similar charge- sheets were issued to Shri Roshan Lal, Junior Engineer, and Shri Ashwani Kumar, Draftsman, in the respondent-Department of Agriculture. Pursuant to this charge-sheet, Shri Harbans Singh Rana, Joint Director of Agriculture, was appointed as the Inquiry Officer on 14.03.2016. He furnished his inquiry report on 31.08.2016, holding that the charges had not been proved against the present petitioner and Shri Roshan Lal. However, the charges were held to be proved against Shri Ashwani Kumar. On the basis of the aforesaid inquiry report, respondent No. 1 passed an order dated 18.10.2016, whereby the charges levelled against the petitioner were dropped, with a warning to him to be careful in future. The relevant portion of the order reads as under: - 3 ( 2026:HHC:39226-DB ) “….AND WHEREAS, the undersigned having gone through the Inquiry Reports and subsequent clarification/report sought from Director of Agriculture has coine to the conclusion that Inquiry Officer has correctly stated that the charge of less G.I wire is not proved. The subsequent report has brought out inadequacies in loading one bundle of G.I. wire in private vehicle for which charged officer is hereby warned to be more careful in future and such type of lapses may not be repeated; and, NOW THEREFORE, the undersigned, being disciplinary authority, hereby drops the charge leveled against Sh. Dharam Chand, SMS, vide this Department's Memorandum of even number dated 14th November, 2014 with further warning to be more careful in future (By Order and in the name of Governor). Secretary (Agr.) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh 3(ii) In terms of the reply filed by the respondents, Shri Ashwani Kumar objected to the inquiry and requested respondent No. 2 to conduct fresh inquiry. Respondent No. 2, on his own accord, appointed Shri Rajender Verma, the then Joint Director of Agriculture, as the Inquiry Officer to inquire into the same charge-sheet afresh. Shri Rajender Verma submitted his inquiry report on 28.12.2017, concluding that the petitioner serving as Sub-Divisional Soil Conservation Officer, Shri Roshan Lal (Junior Engineer) and Shri Ashwani Kumar (Draughtman) were responsible for the shortage of GI wire, the cost of which was assessed at Rs.1,82,395/-. The Inquiry Officer recommended recovering the amount in equal proportion from all the three officers, including the petitioner. 4 ( 2026:HHC:39226-DB ) 3(iii) There is yet another inquiry report on record (Annexure P-4), conducted by Dr. Chaman Jeet Kapoor, the then Joint Director of Agriculture, in relation to the departmental inquiry against Shri Ashwani Kumar, wherein it was concluded that shortage of wire and the loss occasioned on that count were attributable to the petitioner and Shri Ashwani Kumar. It further appears that, on a complaint made by the Director of Agriculture, the Superintendent of Police, SV & ACB, Dharamshala, also conducted an inquiry, the report whereof was furnished on 23.04.2021. The said report concluded that all the three officer were responsible for shortage of GI wire. 3(iv) In the interregnum, the petitioner superannuated on 30.06.2019. Prior to his superannuation, respondent No. 2, vide office letter dated 20.10.2018, decided to grant only provisional pension to the petitioner under Rule 69 read with Rule 9(4) of the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972. Additionally, an amount of Rs. 1,82,395/-, which had been assessed as the cost of the loss of GI wire and attributed in some of the inquiry reports to the negligent actions of three officers, to be recovered from them in equal proportion, was ordered to be withheld from the retirement dues of the petitioner. The amount of Rs. 1,82,395/- was kept under FDR. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondents, the petitioner instituted the present petition. 5 ( 2026:HHC:39226-DB ) 4. Since, in the subsequent inquiry report, the liability of the petitioner was fixed at only Rs. 60,798/- out of the total loss of GI wire amounting to Rs. 1,82,395/-, CMP No. 14064/2023 was moved by the petitioner, seeking direction to the respondents to release the balance amount, out of Rs. 1,82,395/- after deducting the amount of Rs. 60,798/-. This prayer was accepted vide order dated 19.10.2023 passed in the present writ petition, which reads as under: - “CMP No. 14064 of 2023. Despite opportunities, reply has not been filed. It is clear from the contents of communication dated 28.04.2021, Annexure P-14, from the Director of Agriculture, that a sum of Rs. 60,798/-, has been ordered to be recovered from the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the inquiry against the petitioner has not been finalized in so far as the respondents are concerned. It is only by way of challenge of the petitioner for such proceedings are subject matter of the instant petition. By way of instant application, it is prayed that respondents be directed to release balance amount, out of Rs. 1,82,395/-, which was withheld from the dues of petitioner by the respondents after deducting the amount of Rs. 60,798/-. The prayer made by the petitioner is genuine as the respondents, at the most, shall be entitled to sum of Rs. 60,798/- from the petitioner and under the garb of such recovery, the entire payable amount of Rs. 1,82,395/- cannot be withheld. In result, the application is allowed. Respondents are directed to refund and pay to the petitioner balance amount, out of Rs. 182,395/- after deducting a sum of Rs. 60,798/- within two weeks from today. Application stands disposed of.” Learned counsel for the petitioner apprised that petitioner is being paid normal/full pension. 6 ( 2026:HHC:39226-DB ) 5. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties submitted that an amount of Rs.60,798/- has been withheld from petitioner’s retiral dues and is still lying under FDR. There is no dispute on facts that the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner on 14.11.2014 (Annexure P-1) was inquired into by Shri Harbans Singh Rana, who was appointed as Inquiry Officer on 14.03.2016. There is also no dispute on facts that the aforesaid Inquiry Officer furnished his inquiry report on 31.08.2016, holding that the charge had not been substantiated against the petitioner. The respondents, including respondent No. 2-Director of Agriculture, have not disputed that, based upon the aforesaid inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority, i.e. respondent No. 1-Secretary (Agriculture) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, passed an order on 18.10.2016, dropping the charges against the petitioner with a warning to him to be more careful in future. In other words, the penalty imposed upon the petitioner was a warning to be careful in future. No other penal action was taken against the petitioner. Undisputedly, respondent No. 1-Secretary (Agriculture) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh was the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner. It is the said Authority who had issued the charge- sheet to the petitioner as also the order dated 18.10.2016 dropping the charges levelled against the petitioner, based upon the inquiry report. That being the position, it is beyond comprehension as to how 7 ( 2026:HHC:39226-DB ) respondent No. 2 could have reopened the inquiry against the petitioner of his own accord. New inquiry ordered by respondent No. 2 into the subject matter could not have been acted upon qua the petitioner. The record produced by the respondents has also been perused. The record does not reflect that, after the charges against the petitioner were dropped by the Disciplinary Authority under order dated 18.10.2016, respondent No. 2-Director of Agriculture had taken the Disciplinary Authority even into confidence before proceeding against the petitioner and imposing a penalty upon him in respect of the very same subject matter, with regard to which respondent No. 1 had already passed the order dated 18.10.2016. Once the Disciplinary Authority had concluded the disciplinary proceedings in a particular manner, no such power was vested in respondent No. 2 to, on his own, decide to act differently and impose a penalty upon the petitioner on the basis of some subsequent inquiry report. No such provision exists under the applicable Rule 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, which reads as under: - “15. Action on inquiry report (1) The disciplinary authority, if it is not itself the inquiring authority may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, remit the case to the inquiring authority for further inquiry and report and the inquiring authority shall thereupon proceed to hold the further inquiry according to the provisions of Rule 14, as far as may be. (2) The disciplinary authority shall forward or cause to be forwarded a copy of the report of the inquiry, if any, held by the disciplinary authority or where the disciplinary authority is not the 8 ( 2026:HHC:39226-DB ) inquiring authority, a copy of the report of the inquiring authority together with its own tentative reasons for disagreement, if any, with the findings of inquiring authority on any article of charge to the Government servant who shall be required to submit, if he so desires, his written representation or submission to the disciplinary authority within fifteen days, irrespective of whether the report is favourable or not to the Government servant. (3) (a) In every case where it is necessary to consult the Commission, the Disciplinary Authority shall forward or cause to be forwarded to the Commission for its advice: (i) a copy of the report of the Inquiring Authority together with its own tentative reasons for disagreement, if any, with the findings of Inquiring Authority on any article of charge; and (ii) comments of Disciplinary Authority on the representation of the Government servant on the Inquiry report and disagreement note, if any and all the case records of the inquiry proceedings. (b) The Disciplinary Authority shall forward or cause to be forwarded a copy of the advice of the Commission received under clause (a) to the Government servant, who shall be required to submit, if he so desires, his written representation or submission to the Disciplinary Authority within fifteen days, on the advice of the Commission. (4) The Disciplinary Authority shall consider the representation under subrule (2) and/or clause (b) of sub-rule (3), if any, submitted by the Government servant and record its findings before proceedings further in the matter as specified in sub-rules (5) and (6). (5) If the Disciplinary Authority having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of rule 11 should be imposed on the Government servant, it shall, notwithstanding anything contained in rule 16, make an order imposing such penalty. 9 ( 2026:HHC:39226-DB ) (6) If the Disciplinary Authority having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge and on the basis of the evidence adduced during the inquiry is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of rule 11 should be imposed on the Government servant, it shall make an order imposing such penalty and it shall not be necessary to give the Government servant any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed.” It will be appropriate to refer to K.R. Deb vs. The Collector of Central Excise, Shillong2, which inter alia held that there is no provision in Rule 15 for completely setting aside previous inquiry on the ground that the report of the Inquiry Officer does not appeal to the Disciplinary Authority, as the Disciplinary Authority has enough powers to reconsider the evidence itself and come to its own conclusion under Rule 9. Relevant para of the aforesaid judgment reads as under :- “13. It seems to us 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 defect has crept into the inquiry or some 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. But there is 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-. The Disciplinary Authority has enough powers to reconsider the evidence itself and come to its own conclusion under rule 9.” 2 AIR 1971 SC 1447 10 ( 2026:HHC:39226-DB ) The facts of the instant case are on a much better footing, as the Disciplinary Authority had accepted the findings and conclusions of the Inquiry Officer. The Disciplinary Authority had proceeded ahead by issuing the order dated 18.10.2016, dropping the charges against the petitioner, with a warning issued to him to be careful in future. The disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the memorandum of charges dated 14.11.2014 culminated with issuance of the order dated 18.10.2016, thereby bringing them to their logical end. The disciplinary proceeding were no more in existence and had run their course. It was not open to respondent No. 2 to take penal action against the petitioner on the basis of some fresh inquiry ordered by him qua same charges. Respondent No. 2 could not exercise powers which did not vest in him and pass orders de hors Rule 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, while disregarding the order passed by respondent No. 1. Surprisingly, even in terms of the inquiry report called for by respondent No. 2 without jurisdiction, the petitioner was liable to deposit only Rs.60,799/-, whereas the respondents had withheld Rs.1,82,395/- from his retirement dues as against Rs.60,799/-. There was no justification on part of the respondents to withhold an amount of Rs.1,82,395/- when, even in terms of the inquiry report in question, petitioner's liability was restricted to Rs.60,799/-. 11 ( 2026:HHC:39226-DB ) In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to release Rs. 60,799/- withheld from the retirement dues of the petitioner, along with the interest accrued on the Fixed Deposit Receipt. The amount due and admissible to the petitioner be paid to him within a period of two weeks from today. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 15th September, 2026(rohit)