2026:HHC:5275 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.666 of 2025 Date of Decision: 02.03.2026 _______________________________________________________ Ashish Sharma …….Petitioners Versus Ms. Madhu Bahl and others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 Yes. For the Petitioner : Mr. Karan Sharma, Legal Aid Counsel. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 27.05.2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge (Forests) District Shimla, HP in case No.7 of 2024, titled Ashish Sharma vs. Ms. Madhu Bahl & others, affirming the order dated 07.02.2024 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, thereby dismissing the private complaint filed by the petitioner herein under Sections 34, 120-B, 420, 406, 463, 468, 469, 470, 471 IPC against the respondents, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, praying therein to set 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:5275 aside aforesaid order and restore the complaint under aforesaid provision of law, with further direction to learned trial Court to decide the same on the basis of evidence adduced on record by the petitioner-complainant. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Karan Sharma, learned Legal Aid Counsel, representing the petitioner, is that Court below, while passing the impugned order, failed to take note of the relevant documents adduced on record by the petitioner alongwith the complaint, perusal whereof reveals that respondents, while removing the petitioner, not only forged the documents but also passed a stigmatic order, as a result thereof, he is unable to procure employment in other institutions. 3. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings as well as other documents adduced on record, are that complainant, who had been working as a Teacher in Dayanand Public School, the Mall Shimla for the last 15 years, lodged a private complaint under the relevant provisions of law, as detailed hereinabove, alleging therein that since he had highlighted the issue of irregularities and corruption in the appointment of teachers, the respondents, with a view to conceal their misdeeds, concocted a false story, thereby leveling false allegation of blackmailing against the petitioner. Complainant further alleged that he was neither afforded an 3 2026:HHC:5275 opportunity of being heard before issuance of suspension order as well as termination order nor he was provided with the material, which subsequently came to be relied upon by the respondents, while terminating his services. He submitted that since accused prepared false and fake documents, on the basis which fake/false allegations were framed against him, his reputation in the society was damaged and as such, accused, named in the complaint, need to be dealt with in accordance with law. 4. Learned trial Court, having perused the complaint as well as other material placed on record, arrived at a conclusion that disciplinary inquiry was initiated against the petitioner on account of his having levelled false allegations against the school authorities. Inquiry Officer, after having conducting the inquiry, found him guilty of misconduct and accordingly, he was removed from the service. Since action of the respondents in removing the petitioner was a consequence of disciplinary proceedings, learned trial Court arrived at a conclusion that no action of the respondents can be said to be defamatory and accordingly, dismissed the complaint. 5. Being aggrieved with aforesaid order dated 07.02.2024 passed by learned trial Court, petitioner preferred criminal revision petition under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of learned Sessions Judge (Forests), District Shimla, which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 27.05.2025. In the 4 2026:HHC:5275 aforesaid background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set aside aforesaid order. 6. Before proceeding further, this Court finds it necessary to observe that on 27.02.2026, this Court, while hearing the case at hand, apprised the petitioner with regard to legality of order laid challenge in the instant proceedings. Since petitioner appeared in person on the last date of hearing, this Court persuaded him to either engage a lawyer or avail services of Legal Aid Counsel. Though, petitioner insisted to argue himself, but yet this Court, taking note of the fact that he does not have any legal background, requested Mr. Karan Sharma, Advocate to represent the petitioner as Legal Aid Counsel. 7. Mr. Karan Sharma, learned Legal Aid Counsel, apprised this Court that petitioner has already approached Labour Court under the Industrial Dispute Act qua his termination. He states that precise grouse of the petitioner, is that since his termination was on the basis of fake documents prepared by the respondents and on account of preparation of such fake documents, his reputation in society has been tarnished, accused are liable to be prosecuted for defamation. He submitted that the complaint filed by him under relevant provisions of law, as detailed hereinabove, needs to be allowed. 8. However, having carefully perused averments contained in the complaint vis-à-vis reasoning assigned in the impugned orders 5 2026:HHC:5275 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate as well as order dated 27.05.2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge (Forests) Shimla, this Court is not persuaded to accept afore prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 9. Careful perusal of the pleadings as well as documents annexed with the petition, reveal that petitioner was served with a charge-sheet for his misconduct and respondents, after having afforded due opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, proceeded to pass termination order. Inquiry report itself suggests that petitioner herein was afforded opportunity of being heard by the Inquiry Officer. The correctness of disciplinary proceedings as well as finding returned by the Inquiry Officer cannot be gone into the instant proceedings, rather same is required to be laid challenge before the appropriate authority, which in the case at hand, is the Labour Court. By no stretch of imagination, initiation of disciplinary proceedings against an employee like petitioner for his misconduct cannot be said to be defamation. 10. Similarly, preparation of false and fake documents, if any, by the respondents cannot be a ground to conclude defamation, especially when allegation of preparation of false and fake documents has not been proved in accordance with law in the competent court of law. Since allegation of preparation of fake and false documents that too with a view to defame the petitioner is yet to be established in 6 2026:HHC:5275 appropriate proceedings, if any, filed, mere mentioning of the fact in the character certificate that removal was pursuant to a counter inquiry may not be sufficient to conclude allegation of defamation. 11. Though, this Court, during proceedings of the case, attempted to facilitate issuance of a fresh character certificate to the petitioner by persuading the counsel representing the school authorities, but such offer was not accepted by the petitioner, who is otherwise hell-bent in contesting the matter on its own merit. 12. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by learned Sessions Judge (Forests) Shimla, thereby upholding the order dated 07.02.2024 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Shimla, which is based upon proper appreciation of facts as well as law and as such, no interference is called for. 13. The present petition fails and is accordingly dismissed alongwith pending applications, if any. 14. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 02, 2026 (shankar)