2026:HHC:16937 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 7704 of 2023 Decided on: 14.05.2026 Shri Sunny Kumar …….Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Vijender Katoch, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dhananjay Sharma, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petitioner, the petitioner has assailed the termination order Annexure P-1, which reads as under:- “In reference to the Executive Director (Pers.), HPSEBL, Vidyut Bhawan, Shimla-4 vide letter No.HPSEBL(Sectt.)/FT- II/321-7/Jr.T-Mate/2022-88314-464 dated 21.12.2022, and as per the terms and condition of the contract policy as informed, adopted, notified and amended by the board time to time, the services of Sh.Sunny Kumar Junior T-Mate (On contract basis) is hereby terminated with immediate effects.” 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner, who was serving with the respondent-Board, 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:16937 on contract basis, stood arrested on the basis of an FIR lodged against him on 08.09.2022, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Nagrota Bagwan. The petitioner was released on bail on 19.10.2022. In between, on 13.09.2022, vide Annexure P- 3, the petitioner was called upon by the Assistant Engineer concerned to show cause as to why he was absent from duty we.f. 08.09.2022. To this, the petitioner responded vide Annexure P-4, intimating the Authority that a false FIR stood registered against him and he was arrested with regard thereto. 3. After the petitioner was released on bail, he vide Annexure P-5, filed an application to the Authority, with a prayer to allow him to rejoin his duties. 4. In the meanwhile, on 09.09.2022, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide Annexure P-6 appended with the rejoinder filed by the petitioner and a memo was issued to him under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, informing him that the Board intended to hold an enquiry against him on the Article of Charges appended therewith vide Annexure P-7, dated 19.09.2022. 5. According to the petitioner, without holding any such enquiry, the services of the petitioner have been terminated vide Annexure P-1, i.e. office order dated 10.02.2023, which act of the respondents, as per the petitioner, is bad. 3 2026:HHC:16937 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner was serving the Board on contract basis, yet the respondent-Board could not have terminated his services in an arbitrary manner, as has been done in the present case. He submitted that the termination of the services of the petitioner could only have been done in accordance with law and by adhering to the principles of natural justice. He submitted that once a memo stood issued to the petitioner under Rule 16 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, it was for the Board to take said memo to its logical conclusion by holding a departmental enquiry and in the absence of any such fair procedure adopted, his termination is per se bad. Learned Counsel further submitted that otherwise also, office order dated 10.02.2023, is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the same is completely a non- speaking order. 7. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-Board submitted that the petitioner was not a regular employee of the Board but was a contractual employee. She further submitted that the action was taken against the petitioner in light of the contents of the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondent-Board and the order is a non- stigmatic order and therefore, no reasoning was required to be given therein as to why the services of the petitioner were being 4 2026:HHC:16937 terminated. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the primary reason as to why the services of the petitioner were terminated was that he remained absent from duty without any cogent explanation. She further submitted that otherwise also, in light of the fact that an FIR has been registered against the petitioner for the commission of a grave and heinous office, the respondent-Board can do well without employees with such tainted credentials. 8. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-Board, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned office order, in the facts of this case, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 9. It is a matter of record that the petitioner stands booked for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also a matter of record that the trial is still pending. It is also a matter of record that the petitioner was taken into custody after lodging of the FIR against him and was released on bail only on 19.10.2022. 10. The query raised by the employer from the petitioner as to why he had remained absent from duty was explained by the petitioner by way of a reply, in terms whereof, he intimated the employer that he was arrested with regard to an FIR registered 5 2026:HHC:16937 against him. 11. The record demonstrates that thereafter, a memo was issued to the petitioner qua a proposed enquiry under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules and the substance of imputation of misconduct/ misbehaviour was appended therewith, which demonstrated that the reason as to why the respondent-Board intended to hold an enquiry against the petitioner was because of lodging of an FIR against the petitioner under Section 376 of the IPC and due to his absence from duty. 12. It is thereafter that the impugned order has been passed by the Board, in terms whereof, the services of the petitioner have been terminated. Thus, all these facts demonstrate that primarily the foundation for throwing out the petitioner from service is the lodging of the FIR against him. That being so, simply because the same is not reflected in the impugned order, the same does not curtail the right of this Court to lift the veil and see as to what was behind the passing of the order. Obviously, as it was the lodging of the FIR, which led to the passing of the order of termination, the order per se is stigmatic. That being the case, de hors as to whether the petitioner was serving on contract basis or otherwise, the basic principle of law that no one can be condemned unheard and an employee cannot be thrown out of service without at least affording 6 2026:HHC:16937 him an opportunity to put forth his case, was required to be adhered by the employer. 13. Herein, as this basic principle has been violated by the employer, therefore, the impugned office order dated 10.02.2023 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is accordingly quashed and set aside. However, as this Court has quashed the order of termination passed against the petitioner only due to technical reasons, this shall not come in the way of the respondent- Board to initiate any action against the petitioner if it is so advised, on account of lodging of the FIR against him but the Board must adhere to due process of law as also the principles of natural justice. Consequences to follow. With these observations, this petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 14, 2026 (narender)