1 ( 2026:HHC:3385 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA LPA No. 899 of 2025 Date of decision: 08.01.2026 ________________________________________________________ Devinder Singh …..Appellant Versus State of HP & others .....Respondents ________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ________________________________________________________ For the Appellant: Mr. Suneel Awasthi, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 5. G.S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral) Consideration is sought of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 17962 of 2025, titled as Devinder Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others, on 20.11.2025, whereby the learned Single has declined as such to interfere in the departmental proceedings, which had 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2026:HHC:3385 ) been initiated against the present appellant on 09.04.2024 on four charges as such. 2. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that on earlier occasion, the said departmental proceedings were subject matter of challenge in CWP No. 4526/2024, titled as Devinder Singh Vs. State of H.P. & others, which was decided on 24.05.2024, whereby the order dated 01.05.2024, appointing the Inquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer, which was passed without considering the appellant’s reply, had been set aside and directions were issued to consider the reply filed to the Charge- sheet by the appellant and to proceed further in the matter, in accordance with law. 3. Resultantly, the Disciplinary Authority considered the appellant’s reply filed to the Charge- Sheet and vide Office Order dated 20.12.2024, found the same to be un-satisfactory. Thereafter, the said order was upheld in appeal on 27.06.2025, whereby the directions had been issued to take the departmental 3 ( 2026:HHC:3385 ) proceedings to its logical end. In such circumstances, on 02.09.2025, Shri Gurharsh Singh, IFS, DCF Rampur was appointed as Inquiry Officer by the Disciplinary Authority. 4. The said proceedings are again now subject matter of challenge. In the absence of any mala-fide as such, the Writ Court as such came to the conclusion that it would not stop the departmental proceedings and accordingly, the learned Single Judge noticed that if no representation was filed for changing the Presiding Officer or the Inquiry Officer in the Departmental Proceedings and the Writ Court was not to substitute its wisdom with that of the competent Authority, when the inquiry was yet to commence against the petitioner. Case of appellant/petitioner was not falling in any of the exceptions carved out by the Hon’ble Apex Court for interference with the Charge-Sheet and, therefore, the Writ Petition was dismissed by placing reliance as such on the judgments passed by the Apex Court in State of Punjab Vs. V.K. Khanna and others, (2001) 2 SCC 4 ( 2026:HHC:3385 ) 330, Union of India & Anr. Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC 28, Secretary Ministry of Defence and others Vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, (2012) 11 SCC 565 and Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors Vs. A. Masilamani, (2013) 6 SCC 530. 5. Reliance has also been placed upon the earlier decision of this Court in CWPOA No. 5991/2020, titled as Shyam Lal Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others, decided on 10.08.2021, wherein the limitation of the Writ Court as such and the principles as to where the Writ Court has to interfere and exercise judicial review, had been laid down. 6. Learned Counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in State of U.P. & others Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, 2010 AIR 3131, to contend that the government servant is to be treated fairly in proceedings and it is not a casual exercise where the departmental inquiry is to be conducted against a 5 ( 2026:HHC:3385 ) Government servant. He has also placed reliance upon the judgment in V.K. Khanna’s case, (supra). 7. We are of the considered opinion that the said judgments are not applicable to the present case. 8. In Saroj Kumar Sinha’s case, the Apex Court as such was dealing with an order of removal of a Government servant, after examining the departmental proceedings and had come to the conclusion that the order of the High Court was justified in setting aside the said proceedings and directing the removal as such, as necessary documents as such had not been supplied to the delinquent employee. In such circumstances, the observation was made that there was flagrant disregard to the mandatory Rules and the employee had made relentless efforts to secure photocopies of the documents, which were sought to be relied upon to prove the charges. It was further held that it was difficult to comprehend why the Disciplinary Authority as such had refused to supply the photocopies of the documents notwithstanding the specific request as 6 ( 2026:HHC:3385 ) such. Therefore, the said judgment is not applicable to the present case. 9. In V.K. Khanna’s case, (supra), the issue as such was regarding the inquiry against the Chief Secretary as such by the Government of State of Punjab and there were allegations of mala fide raised at the highest level against the then Chief Minister. In such circumstances, the Apex Court as such had come to the conclusion that the view taken by the High Court as such could not be faulted in any way, since there was an element of malice and mala fide involved in the issue of charge-sheet and the Authority concerned was biased and therefore, the inquiry would be a mere farcial show and, therefore, the interference as such had been held to be justified. 10. In the present case, as noticed, the appellant had been initially suspended way back on 24.12.2023 on account of the videos uploaded in the social media by one Lokender Singh regarding the illegal mining/ breaking of the government land/extraction of stones 7 ( 2026:HHC:3385 ) from the Government/forest land in Chaklot to Chunagi road side. At that time, he was working as a Forest Guard. In these circumstances, Charge-sheet as such had been served upon him, wherein there were allegations not only of dereliction of mandatory Government failure to detect huge forest offence i.e. illegal mining/extraction of stone (2505m3) in Brow Beat, but also the connivance with the offenders, negligence in performing duties and causing loss to the State Exchequer to the tune of Rs.36,86,480/- apart from non-compliance of the orders of his superiors. 11. For the failure to detect huge forest offence for which he was stated to be fully responsible and being well-aware, as he had additional charge of BO Nirmand in the year 2023 due to illness of the Deputy Ranger Dilla Ram. 12. The argument raised that private respondent No. 6 as such was also responsible and would be as such in a position to influence the Inquiry Officer is 8 ( 2026:HHC:3385 ) without any basis, as the said Officer is a high ranking Officer of the Indian Forest Services. 13. It is always open to the appellant as such to put-forth his defence and show that it was not only he as such, who was responsible but there were other superior officers also who were equally responsible and it was for the Inquiry Officer to take all these facts into consideration and not for the Writ Court to go into the same as it is the jurisdiction of the Competent Authority as such, at this stage. 14. Therefore, we do not find any plausible reason as such to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice. January 08, 2026 (Jiya Lal Bhardwaj) (hemlata) Judge.