1 2026:HHC:791 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA LPA No. 180 of 2025 Decided on: 01 st January , 202 6 _______________________________________________________ The Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board ....Appellant Versus Sahi Ram ...Respondent ________________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the appellant: Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dhananjay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) The challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to the order passed by the learned Single Judge in CWPOA No. 1658 of 2019, titled, Shri Sahi Ram vs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, decided on 22.09.2023, whereby, learned Single Judge has set aside the punishment order dated 25.03.1997, by which the employee was removed from the service and the Appellate order dated 13.04.2009, while noticing the background of the case and also being 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 2026:HHC:791 primarily of the opinion that there was discrimination, as the other delinquent employees as such, has not been acted against and the charges have been dropped against them and action on the part of the Board is indeed discriminatory and cannot be upheld. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under :- “13. In this case, it is a matter of record that in the criminal proceedings which resulted from the lodging of the FIR, the petitioner was acquitted. Learned Trial Court held that it had no hesitation in holding that the prosecution had not proved the allegations against the accused at all. As the complainant was the respondent Board itself and as the Board failed to prove the allegations leveled by it against the petitioner in same set of proceedings, it was highly unjust on its part to still maintain the order of dismissal from service against the petitioner while not taking any action against other persons accused in the matter by even dropping the charge sheets against them. This act on the part of the Board is indeed discriminatory and cannot be upheld.” 2. During the proceedings of the appeal order dated 25.03.1997, passed by the Secretary of the Board, imposing a penalty upon Bhola Singh, Assistant Engineer (Retired) was placed on record which would go on to show that ¼th basic pension of Bhola Singh was withheld for three years with immediate effect. 3. Perusal of the said document would also go on to show that the enquiry was ordered against both Bhola Singh and Sahi Ram (storekeeper) and Inquiry Officer was also common and further the inquiry report was also common. 3 2026:HHC:791 4. We have gone through the pleadings of the original writ petition which was subject matter of consideration and there was specific averment in paragraph 20 ground (vii) that charge against Bhola Singh was dropped, which was apparently against the record. The relevant portion reads as under:- “(vii) That the Petitioner was charge-sheeted along with the Assistant Engineer, Shir Bhola Singh for the same charges, however, in case of the Petitioner, the major penalty of removal from service has been passed whereas in case of Shri Bhola Singh, the charges were dropped. That being so, similar treatment is required to be given to the Petitioner as well.” 5. Unfortunately, the reply filed to the said paragraph of the writ petition was to the extent that disciplinary authority did not find Bhola Singh involved in the case on the basis of the inquiry report and the charge against Bhola Singh was dropped. The relevant portion reads as under:- “ The contents of this sub para are admitted to the extent that the petitioner was charge sheeted along with Sh. Bhola Singh, A.E. in common proceeding on the same charges. But the Disciplinary Authority did not found Sh. Bhola Singh involved in the case on the basis of the inquiry report evidence on record etc. As such the charge against Sh. Bhola Singh was dropped. Therefore the plea advanced by the petitioner that similar treatment was required to be given to the petitioner is wrong and denied.” 6. We have also gone through the inquiry report, (Annexure P-3) which transpires that Bhola Singh was also found involved in the incident of pilferage of the un-auctioned material and charge was fully 4 2026:HHC:791 established, which would be clear from the paragraph findings, which reads as under :- “ 6.4.2. Delinquent Sh. Bhola Singh, AE (DW-3) In the deposition (DW-3) as well as in the written Brief (DB-II), the Delinquent made a repeated attempts to side track the issue by fabricating his transfer storey vice Dr. Y.K. Gupta AEE and alleging him to have misguided the superiors had an anonymous person not rang up to the SE (PW-7) (who came into action very swiftly) on the day of this serious incident of pilferage of material, both the Delinquents as well as the Bidder would have succeeded in their mission of wrongful gain. Other Delinquent (DW-1) in his deposition clearly admitted that Delinquent (DW-3) was keeping track of the material being loaded into the private truck (Reply to question-16). Further under the circumstances of establishment of charge of pilferage of un-auctioned material from the store, taking lift in the Bidder car by both Delinquents even upto Bus stand as admitted by them and taking lunch with Bidder by the Delinquent (DW-3) as alleged by SE (PW-7) on the strength of verbal enquiry attract weightage in favour of charge. The involvement of Delinquent (DW-3) in this incident of pilferage of un-auctioned material is fully established in view of the assessment made above in details under his deposition (DW-3) as well as establishment of article of charge-1 against other Delinquents (DW-1). During the course of enquiry proceedings, it has been revealed that the pilfered material is still lying in the police custody and the concerned Sub-Division as well as Division have not taken any action to get this material released by filing an application in the Hon’ble Court at Solan and is a matter of great concern.” 7. It is thus apparent that on account of wrong reply filed by the Electricity Board, the error has occurred in recording the findings that Bhola Singh had not been acted against. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the matter will have to be 5 2026:HHC:791 reheard, as there is an error apparent on the face of the record and the findings of the learned Single Judge which are based on the reasoning is against the record and cannot be sustained. However, apparently the fault lies in the filing of the reply and therefore, while allowing the appeal, we impose cost of 50,000/-, which is to be paid to the ₹ employee, so that he can use the said cost for legal expenses to be incurred in defending the writ petition again. 8. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed and the case is restored to the original position for fresh decision and the judgment dated 22.09.2023 is set aside. It is made clear that if the amount is not paid within a period of two months from today the order passed by the learned Single Judge will continue to remain in force and the present appeal will be deemed to have been dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice 01 st January , 202 6 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (Anurag) Judge