( 2026:HHC:16282 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMP(M) No.635 of 2026 in LPA No.277 of 2026 Date of Decision:- 11.05.2026 State of Himachal Pradesh and another ....Appellants Versus Kishori Lal ....Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants : Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral). CMP(M) No.635 of 2026 Keeping in view the averments made in the application, duly supported by the affidavit of the official, delay of 180 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The application stands disposed off accordingly. LPA No.277 of 2026 3. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 21.07.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWPOA No.1747 of 2020, titled Kishori Lal Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, whereby the proceeding which had been 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 initiated by the employee before the erstwhile Tribunal was disposed of by setting aside the notification/order dated 20.04.2016 (Annexure A-6) with direction to the 2nd respondent to pass an order afresh strictly in terms of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Union of India and others Vs. K.V. Jankiraman and others, (1991) 4 SCC 109. 4. The learned Single Judge had noticed that the employee was granted the benefit of promotion to the post of Section Officer Class-I (Gazetted) vide notification dated 20.04.2016 with retrospective effect from 21.03.2012 but only on notional basis. Resultantly, it was ordered for re-consideration on the admitted fact that not only in the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner was absolved of the charges framed against him vide order dated 20.03.2014, but also in the criminal proceedings, he was acquitted by the Special Judge (Forest), Shimla vide order dated 01.06.2015. It was in such circumstances, the directions were given. 5. A perusal of the paper-book would go on to show that while passing the order dated 20.04.2016, no specific reasons were given as to why the petitioner was denied the actual benefits who had retired as Superintendent Grade-II. It is not disputed that the criminal proceedings were initiated on 06.07.2011 and the employee had been detained in custody and placed under 3 suspension on 08.07.2011 and resultantly he was charge-sheeted on 15.02.2012. During the intervening period, he was retired on 31.05.2013 and the Disciplinary Authority accepted the report of the Inquiry Officer and absolved the petitioner from charges in the year 2014. Resultantly, he had approached to the appellants-State by filing a representation dated 22.06.2015 (Annexure A-5) and the case before the erstwhile Tribunal was that he was duly ignored by the State as such and the juniors had been granted the benefit of ACP and also the fact that the sealed cover was to be opened and the applicant was to be considered for promotion on actual/regular basis. Reliance upon the judgments of the Apex Court in K.V. Jankiraman case (supra) and Union of India and others Vs. Sangram Keshari Nayak (2007) 6 SCC 704, apart from other judgments passed by the Tribunals as such were relied upon. 6. It is in such circumstances, the learned Single has set aside the notification dated 20.04.2016 (Annexure A-6) and directed the 2nd respondent for re-consideration afresh on the basis of the law laid down in K.V. Jankiraman case (supra). 7. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that it is the bounden duty of the State to take call on the same and apparently it would be clear that the Inquiry Officer came to the categorical findings that the charges levelled against the employee could not be proved, which at one point of time was not 4 agreed by the Disciplinary Authority. Eventually the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh as such had come to the conclusion on 20.01.2014 (Annexure A-3) that there was no justifiable reasons to disagree with the findings of the Inquiry Authority which were exhaustive and therefore absolved the employee and directed that the suspension period be regulated by the leave of the kind due w.e.f. 06.07.2011 to 14.07.2011 and spent on duty w.e.f. 15.07.2011 to 16.02.2012. 8. Resultantly, we are of the considered opinion that once at the highest level the petitioner had been exonerated on the departmental side, the learned Single Judge has correctly ordered for re-consideration and the present appeal has thus no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. 9. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Shall also stands disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 11th May, 2026 (Munish Thakur)