2026:HHC:39426 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15380 of 2026 Decided on: 16.09.2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gurdyal Singh …..Petitioner Versus HRTC and Ors .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the Petitioner: Mr. Rakesh K Dogra, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner is serving as Sub-Inspector in Respondent-Himachal Road Transport Corporation. Disciplinary proceedings against him were contemplated by the respondents. Vide office order dated 21.07.2026 (Annexure P-2), respondent No 3- Manager Technical, HRTC, Sundernagar, exercising the powers conferred under Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, placed the petitioner under suspension with immediate effect. This was followed by the memorandum of charge sheet dated 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:39426 01.08.2026 (Annexure P-3), issued by respondent No. 3 to the petitioner. The charge sheet was issued under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules. In terms of Rule 14(2) of the aforesaid Rules, respondent No.3 appointed an Inquiry Officer to inquire into the charges framed against the petitioner. Presenting Officer was also appointed under the same office order i.e. Annexure P-6. Petitioner seeks quashing and setting aside of suspension order dated 21.07.2026 (Annexure P-2), as also the charge memo dated 01.08.2026 (Annexure P-3). 2. The sole reason urged by learned counsel for the petitioner for seeking the aforesaid relief is alleged incompetency of respondent No. 3 to have issued impugned office order and the charge sheet. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited attention to Rule 14(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules and submitted that it is only the disciplinary authority who can inquire into the charge sheet and not respondent No. 3. The said Rule reads as under: Rule 14(2) “Whenever the Disciplinary Authority is of the opinion that there are grounds for inquiring into the truth of any imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against a Government servant, it may itself inquire into, or appoint under this rule or under the provisions of the Public 3 2026:HHC:39426 Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, as the case may be, an authority to inquire into the truth thereof” The aforesaid Rule pertains to the conduct of inquiry into the charge sheet. In terms of Rule 14(2), wherever disciplinary authority is of the opinion that there are grounds for inquiring into the truth of any imputation of misconduct or misbehavior against a Government servant, it can either itself inquire into or appoint an authority to inquire into the truth thereof. Learned counsel submitted that in view of Annexure-A appended with order dated 23.03.1996 (Annexure P-7), it is the Divisional Manager who is the disciplinary authority in the case of the petitioner in respect of major penalty proposed for the petitioner [clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules] as per memo of charges issued to him under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The said provision under Annexure-A, (pertaining to the post held by the petitioner, which is covered under clause (f) of Annexure-A), reads as under: “Schedule of powers of appointments, discipline, appeals etc. in Himachal Road Transport Corporation. Sr.No. Category of the post. Authority competent to make appointment Nature of penalty in relation to rule 11 of the CCS (CC A) Rules, 1965 Authority comp0tent to impose penalty Appellate authority F All other Class-III posts (IInd part) except drivers and Conductors and Junior Technicians Chief General Manager/General Manager/Divisional Manager (i) to (iv) (v) to (ix) F.A. & Chief Accounts officer/Dy. Divisional Manager/Dy General Manager/Regional Manager/ Manager (Tech.) of Head of Office General Manager/Divisional Manager Chief General Manager/General Manager/Divisional Manager Managing Director 4 2026:HHC:39426 The endeavor made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of Divisional Manager having been specifically authorized to impose major penalty under clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules, neither the charge sheet could have been issued to the petitioner by respondent No.3, nor the said authority could have appointed Inquiry Officer for inquiring into the charges levelled against the petitioner. 3. Noticing the above grievance of the petitioner, following order was passed in the matter on 03.09.2026:- “The only grievance raised by the petitioner is that charge sheet (Annexure P-3) is issued to him by Manager (Technical) of the respondent- corporation, whereas the competent authority to issue the charge sheet in case of petitioner, who is serving as Sub-Inspector is Divisional Manager. Learned counsel for the respondent- corporation seeks time to have instructions in the matter. List on 11.09.2026” Pursuant to above, learned counsel for the respondents placed on record office instructions dated 16.09.2026 from the Executive Director of the respondent Road Transport- Himachal Road Transport Corporation, relevant portion of which reads as under:- 5 2026:HHC:39426 “In this regard, it is submitted that the contention raised by the petitioner regarding the competency of the Manager (Technical, HRTC, Sundernagar, to issue the charge-sheet is factually as well as legally misconceived. The charge-sheet has been issued by an authority competent to institute disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with the applicable rules and instructions of the respondent-Corporation. That Rule 13(2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 provides that a Disciplinary Authority competent under the said Rules to impose any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule 11 may institute disciplinary proceedings against any Government servant for the imposition of any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 11, notwithstanding that such Disciplinary Authority is not competent under the Rules to impose the latter penalties. That, similarly, the applicable instructions issued by the Himachal Road Transport Corporation vide Office Instructions dated 23.03.1996, read with Annexure P-7, particularly Sr. No. (F), specifically empower the Manager (Technical as well as Head of Office to act as the competent authority for initiating disciplinary proceedings/issuing charge-sheet in the relevant cases.” 4. The above stand of the respondent Corporation is fortified by Rule 13(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, which is as under:- Rule 13(2) “A Disciplinary Authority competent under these rules to impose any of the penalties specified in 6 2026:HHC:39426 Clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule 11 may institute disciplinary proceedings against any Government servant for the imposition of any of the penalties specified in Clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 11 notwithstanding that such Disciplinary Authority is not competent under these rules to impose any of the latter penalties.” In terms of above extracted Rule, a disciplinary authority which is competent to impose any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv) (minor penalty) of Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, can institute disciplinary proceedings against the Government servant even for imposition of penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 11 (major penalty). This is notwithstanding the fact that such disciplinary authority may not be competent under the Rules to impose major penalties. The above Rule has been clarified further under G.I. dated 28.07.1987 to the effect that a disciplinary authority competent to impose any of the minor penalties, but not competent to impose any major penalty, can initiate and process disciplinary proceedings against the Government servant concerned for imposition of a major penalty. On the conclusion of inquiry and receipt of inquiry report, if the disciplinary authority comes to the conclusion that minor penalty will meet the requirement of the case, it is well within its competence to impose the minor penalty 7 2026:HHC:39426 without seeking the approval of the authority competent to impose a major penalty on the concerned Government servant. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that Manager Technical- respondent No 3, is the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner for imposing minor penalty, that is under clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. That being the position, respondent No. 3 was competent to issue memorandum of charge sheet to the petitioner for imposition of major penalty under clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules and also to appoint Inquiry Officer for inquiring into the charges leveled against the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition fails and is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua September 16, 2026 Judge R.Atal