Safiya Malik

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh Division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ranjan Sharma held that the disciplinary proceedings and findings of misconduct against a government employee were unsustainable in law due to lack of evidence. The Court quashed the ex parte inquiry report along with consequential orders of suspension, punishment, and service treatment. The respondents were directed to extend the benefits arising from the quashing of these orders to the petitioner by 30th September 2025. However, it was clarified that no interest would be payable on any arrears due.

The petitioner, a government employee serving as Superintendent Grade-II in the Directorate of Horticulture, had initially approached the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal seeking quashing of various disciplinary orders issued against him. Following the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter was transferred to the High Court and registered as CWPOA No. 6228 of 2020.

Also Read: Supreme Court Restores Criminal Case Under Section 387 IPC | Says Fear Of Death To Extort Money Is Punishable Even Without Actual Delivery

The disciplinary action originated from a communication dated 16 September 2017 issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, which suspended the petitioner for issuing press statements critical of government policies. The petitioner was alleged to have violated Rules 3 and 8 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. A subsequent office order dated 23 September 2017 formally placed the petitioner under suspension and fixed his headquarters at Mandi.

The article of charges framed against the petitioner included allegations of public criticism of government policies in newspapers, making false complaints against superior officers, issuing press statements under an unrecognized employee association, and organizing press conferences while allegedly on medical rest.

The charges were supported by twelve documents, including newspaper clippings and internal communications. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 15 November 2017 denying the allegations and requesting revocation of suspension and release of withheld salary.

On 28 October 2017, an Inquiry Officer was appointed. The inquiry proceeded ex parte following the petitioner’s alleged non-cooperation. Only two witnesses, Devinder Thakur and Subhash Dhiman, were examined. According to the Inquiry Report dated 18 December 2017, the petitioner was found guilty based on newspaper cuttings, witness statements, and past conduct.

The Director of Horticulture imposed a penalty of dismissal on 30 December 2017. Upon appeal, the Principal Secretary (Horticulture) modified the punishment on 10 July 2018 to reduction in pay for a period of three years without accrual of increments during and after the penalty period. A further office order dated 9 August 2018 treated the petitioner’s period of absence as dies-non.

In response, the petitioner argued that the inquiry was held without giving him reasonable opportunity to participate and that the evidence relied upon was not legally substantiated. The respondents, in reply, maintained that the petitioner had failed to cooperate and that charges stood proven through ex parte proceedings.

However, the Court noted that neither of the two witnesses had proved the documents relied upon by the department, nor was there any direct evidence linking the petitioner to the newspaper statements. It was also observed that the petitioner had contested the charges both before and after the inquiry and had raised objections regarding the manner in which the inquiry had been conducted.

The Court found no evidence to suggest that the ex parte order and subsequent dates were properly communicated to the petitioner. Additionally, the inquiry proceedings were held at different locations (Shimla and Dharamshala), despite the petitioner’s headquarters being fixed at Mandi.

The Court observed that even if the petitioner was absent, it was still the responsibility of the department to substantiate the charges through legally admissible evidence. It further held that no press correspondent or editor had been examined to authenticate the newspaper articles used as circumstantial evidence.

The Court noted that reliance on an earlier inquiry report by Subhash Dhiman and S.M. Katiah was misplaced, as that report was not produced or proved in the present proceedings.

The Court recorded that conducting an ex parte inquiry does not permit the Inquiry Officer to arrive at conclusions favoring the department and adverse to the employee in the absence of supporting evidence. It was observed that the Presenting Officer, the concerned disciplinary authority, and the Inquiry Officer had not fulfilled their obligation to follow the basic tenets of natural justice and service jurisprudence.

 The statements made by the two witnesses examined during the proceedings were found to lack any incriminating material or documents against the petitioner, and hence the findings delivered by the Inquiry Officer were based on no evidence and deemed perverse.

The Court noted that although the petitioner was proceeded against ex parte during the inquiry, he had earlier submitted a representation contesting the accuracy of the charges framed against him.

He had also reiterated his denial even after receiving the inquiry report. Thus, the case did not involve an absence of contest by the petitioner but rather a consistent denial of the allegations.

In this context, the Court stated that it was the duty of the authority, the Presenting Officer, and the Inquiry Officer to produce adequate and reliable evidence to support the documents relied upon for the charges.

The Court further noted that the relevance of the earlier inquiry referred to during the proceedings, which had not been placed on record, remained unexplained and unclear.

 It concluded that both the disciplinary and appellate authorities had failed to properly scrutinize the record and had instead accepted the inquiry findings in a mechanical and uncritical manner.

The Court held that the findings returned in the Inquiry were not sustainable and accordingly quashed the same. It further quashed all consequential orders arising out of the said inquiry. The exact directive stated: “Findings returned in the Inquiry are not sustainable and are quashed and set aside.”

The Court held that following the quashing of the findings returned by the Inquiry Officer which had held the petitioner guilty of misconduct, all related and consequential orders—including those dated 30 December 2017, 10 July 2018, 9 August 2018, and 23 September 2017 concerning the petitioner’s suspension—were also found to be unsustainable and were accordingly set aside.

Also Read: Jharkhand HC : Institution Receiving Substantial Govt Aid Is a Public Authority | Upholds RTI Mandate, Dismisses St. Joseph’s College Appeal Under Section 2(h)

It was further directed that the outcome of setting aside the impugned inquiry report and related orders must be given effect to, and the resulting benefits must be granted to the petitioner no later than 30th September 2025.

 However, the Court clarified that the petitioner would not be entitled to any interest on arrears, if any, that may become payable.

With these directions, the petition was allowed and disposed of.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Balwinder Singh, Deputy Advocate General; Mr. Ajeet Kumar Saklani, Advocate.

Case Title: Vinod Kumar v. State of H.P. & others

Neutral Citation: 2025:HHC:18555

Case Number: CWPOA No. 6228 of 2020

Bench: Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Justice Ranjan Sharma