UNION OF INDIA vs TRILOCHAN DASS DOGRA
- Court
- High Court of Himachal Pradesh
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
AT SHIMLA
High Court of H.P.
CWP No: 1990 of 2015
And
CWP No 3128 of 2015.
Reserved on: 30.05.2026
Decided on: 04.06.2026
1. CWP No. 1990 of 2015.
Union of India and others ...Petitioners
Versus
Trilochan Dass Dogra ….Respondent
__
2. CWP No. 3128 of 2015.
Trilochan Dass Dogra ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge
1
Whether approved for reporting? Yes
For the Petitioners : Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy
Solicitor General of India with Mr.
Rajeev Sharma, Advocate, in CWP
No.1990 of 2015.
For the Respondent : Mr. Jeevesh Sharma Advocate, in
in CWP No. 1990 of 2015.
And
For the Petitioner : Mr. Jeevesh Sharma Advocate, in
in CWP No 3128 of 2015.
For the Respondents : Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy
Solicitor General of India with Mr.
Rajeev Sharma, Advocate, in CWP
No. 3128 of 2015.
Ranjan Sharma, Judge
Union of India and others, being the
petitioners in CWP No 1990 of 2015, have assailed
the order dated 30.09.2014 [Annexure P-5], [referred
to as the Impugned Order], passed by the Learned
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 2 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
Central Administrative Tribunal [referred to as the
Tribunal], whereby, the dismissal orders passed on
High Court of H.P.
14.02.2008, were modified by making it effective from
date of passing fresh rejection orders on 17.11.2011,
with direction to consider his case for compassionate
allowance, in case, the respondent-employee files an
application for the same; and the connected petition
i.e. CWP No 3128 of 2015 , has been filed by Trilochan
Dass Dogra, having been dismissed from post of
Sub-Postmaster, assailing the Impugned Order passed
by the Learned Tribunal on 30.09.2014 [Annexure P-5]
upholding his dismissal from service; with the prayer
for quashing and setting aside the Impugned Order
passed by Tribunal ; with the prayer to reinstate him
in service with all consequential benefits or to pass
such other orders or directions, as may be necessary
in facts and circumstances of this case.
FACTUAL MATRIX IN CWP No 3128 OF 2015:
2. Petitioner-employee, Trilochan Dass Dogra,
had set up a case that he joined service as a
Postal Assistant on 17.01.1983 and was promoted
as a Sub-Postmaster. It is averred that while he
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 3 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
was posted in Sub-Post Office Sarimolag, in District
High Court of H.P.
Kangra, he was detained by the police on 23-03-2003
and FIR was registered against him on 24-03-2007
vide FIR No 56/2007 on 24-03-2007 under Section
409 IPC . Due to registration of FIR, petitioner was
placed under suspension on 26-03-2007 [Annexure A-4]
and his headquarters were fixed at Palampur on
30.03.2007.
2(i). Respondent No 4-Superintendent of Post
Offices Dharamsala being the disciplinary authority
issued a Charge-sheet on 15.06.2007 [Annexure A-5 ]
levelling three allegations against the petitioner. The
first charge as per Article-I was that petitioner had
booked one Registered Parcel No 4630 on 5.3.2007
and had shown its dispatch to Pathankot Railway
Mail Service on 5.3.2007 but this parcel was actually
dispatched on 6.3.2007 which was alleged to be non-
compliance of Rule 53 and Rule 136 of the Postal
Manual. The second charge was that the petitioner
was alleged to have booked another Registered Parcel
No 4664 on 21.03.2007 and he failed to dispatch
the same to the Pathankot Railway Mail Service or
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 4 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
Palampur Headquarters on same day and this parcel
High Court of H.P.
was dispatched on 22.03.2007, which was alleged
to be violation of Rule 171(3) and Rule 186 of the
Postal Manual. The third charge consisted of four
sub-charges and as per Charge no III (i ), petitioner
was alleged to have booked a Registered Parcel No
4669 on 23-03-2007, and failed to enter particulars
thereof in receipt side of Parcel Abstract. In terms
of Charge no III (ii), the petitioner was alleged to have
falsified relevant records regarding Registered Parcel
No 4669 booked on 23.03.2007. Charge no III (iii) alleged
that petitioner had left office during working hours
without permission in violation of Rule 62 of Postal
Manual, Volume-III and Rule 21(3) of Postal Manual
Volume VI, Part-1. The Charge No III (iv) alleged that
the petitioner was alleged to have tampered with the
Registered Parcel No 4669, containing answer sheets
of 10+2 Examination, which were booked by Centre
Superintendent Examination of GSSS Sarimolag and
two answer sheets, relating to the son of petitioner
and daughter of Radha Devi, GDS Packer posted in
Sub Post Office Sarimolag were recovered from the
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 5 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
residence of the petitioner.
2(ii). It is averred that departmental authorities
High Court of H.P.
intended to prove these allegations on the basis
of 22 documents listed in Article-III of the Charge-sheet
and by examining 9 witnesses as mentioned in
Annexure-IV to the charge sheet dated 15.06.2007
[Annexure A-5]. In-response to the Charge-Sheet dated
15.06.2007, petitioner submitted defence statement on
13.07.2007 , denying the charges to be wrong and
false. Resultantly, one Shri R.S. Rana was appointed
as Inquiry Officer on 02.08.2007, who conducted the
Inquiry {though in violation of rules} and the Inquiry
Officer submitted the Inquiry Report on 4.1.2008,
with the findings that all Charges were proved,
as petitioner had admitted Charge No 1 & II before
the Inquiry Officer on 18.08.2007 and even Charge
no III (i) to (iv), which were denied, by pleading
not guilty, stood proved against the petitioner.
2(iii). It is averred that on receipt of Inquiry
Report dated 4.1.2008 [Annexure A-7] on 7.1.2008
the Respondent no 4-disciplinary Authority, gave an
opportunity to the petitioner to submit representation
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 6 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
against the Inquiry Report. The petitioner
submitted
High Court of H.P.
a representation on 1.2.2008 [Annexure A-8] , denying
the findings in the Inquiry Report to be perverse
with the plea that the charges were not proved
on the basis of oral or documentary evidence. It
was averred that since the teachers had snatched
the registered parcel by trespassing into the post
office and these teachers had taken away the
parcel outside the post-office, then, the case under
Section 382 IPC ought to have been registered against
these teachers. It was averred that even Raghubir
Singh, a Part Time Chowkidar specifically stated that
the parcel fell down in the scuffle between petitioner
and two teachers. So far as Charges no I and II
are concerned, the petitioner stated that the non-
dispatch of registered parcel no 4630 on 5.3.2007
and registered parcel no 4664 dated 21.03.2007 were
by way of inadvertence. So far as Charge no III,
alleging the petitioner to have tampered parcel no
4669 on 23.03.2007 as per the statement made
by Radha Devi (SW-3) during preliminary inquiry,
it was submitted that aforesaid Radha Devi had
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 7 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
made another statement that one Shri Suram Singh
High Court of H.P.
Banyal (Preliminary Inquiry Officer) had forced her
to depose against the petitioner, in a room and
that too in absence of the petitioner. It was averred
that the allegations regarding tampering, fabrication
of record and the recovery of answer sheets could
not be attributed when, petitioner had not resorted
to any such acts, as petitioner was detained by
the police on 23.03.2007 and the alleged recovery
of answer sheets was made by the police, in his
absence allegedly from his residence on 24.03.2007
highly suspicious. It was averred that statement of
SHO disproved the allegations. It was averred that
Chairman and Secretary of School Education Board,
SDM concerned and Principal of GSSS Sarimolag
who had participated in verification of the parcel
containing the answer-sheets were not examined. It
was stated that the teacher Shri Om Prakash Rana
(SW-5) had strained relations with the petitioner
and his son and therefore, false accusation was
made against the petitioner. Other contradictions were
pointed out in the representation, which ran into
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 8 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
74 pages, with the request to give personal hearing
High Court of H.P.
also.
2(iv). Respondent No 4, Superintendent of Post
Offices Dharamsala-Disciplinary Authority passed
the dismissal orders on 14.02.2008 [Annexure A-1],
without considering the points raised by petitioner
in the representation and without affording a personal
hearing to the petitioner.
2(v). Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner submitted
an appeal to Director Postal Services, which was
rejected on 04.08.2008, [Annexure A-2]. Thereafter a
revision was preferred on 16.07.2009, which was
also dismissed by Chief Post Master General, Postal
Circle, Shimla, on 31.08.2009, [Annexure A-3], with
the finding that failure to dispatch three registered
parcels, i.e. registered parcel no 4630 on 5.3.2007,
parcel no 4664 on 21.03.2007 and parcel no 4669
on 23.3.2007 was violative of Rule 171(3) of Postal
Manual and Instructions No 23(2) below Rule 3 of
the CCS (Conduct) Rules.
2(vi). The dismissal orders dated 14.02.2008 and
the orders dated 04.08.2008 passed by the appellate
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 9 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
authority and the orders dated 31.08.2009 passed
High Court of H.P.
by the revisional authority were assailed before the
Learned Tribunal in O.A. No 900/HP/2010 , with the
plea that Inquiry was not conducted in accordance
with the Rules, the documents were not supplied,
personal hearing was not given and the factum of
acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case on
17.08.2011 [Annexure A-12] was ignored by the
Authorities with the prayer to set-aside the impugned
orders.
2(vii). The aforesaid Original Application, O.A. No
900/HP/2010 , was decided by Learned Tribunal on
09.09.2011, [Annexure 3/A], whereby, the dismissal
order dated 14.02.2008, and the orders dismissing
the appeal dated 04.08.2008 and the orders dated
31.08.2009 dismissing the revision petition, were
set-aside with the directions to the Respondent No.
2-Chief Post Master General to pass fresh orders
after affording personal hearing and after considering
unblemished 24 years of service and the acquittal
in criminal case.
2(viii). Incompliance to the orders passed by the
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 10 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
Tribunal on 09.09.2011, the petitioner submitted a
High Court of H.P.
representation on 01.10.2011 but same was rejected
by the Respondent No 2-Chief Post Master General
on 17.11.2011, [Annexure A-3/B], by reiterating the
dismissal orders.
ADVERSIAL ORDERS ASSAILED IN OA No 1323
/HP /2012:
3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed another
Original Application, OA No 1323/HP/2012, assailing
the Dismissal orders, Appellate orders, Revisional
orders and Fresh Rejection orders dated 17.11.2011
asserting that these orders were passed in violation
of the procedure under the rules and the principles
of natural justice with prayer to set-aside these orders
and to reinstate him with all consequential benefits,
from the date of deemed suspension on 23.03.2007
in view of his honorable acquittal, with all benefits.
STAND OF RESPONDENTS IN REPLY TO ORIGINAL
APPLICATION OA No 1323 / HP /2012:
3(i). In Reply to OA No 1323/HP/2012 , the
Respondents have come up with the stand that
Dismissal Orders, Appellate Orders and the Revisional
Orders were passed, with due application of mind
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 11 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
on the basis of records and documentary evidence.
High Court of H.P.
It was stated that the petitioner was found guilty
of gross irregularities and falsification of Government
records and pursuant to the directions passed by
Tribunal on 9.9.2011 in OA 900/HP/2010, petitioner
was given personal hearing and thereafter fresh orders
were passed on 17.11.2011, reiterating the earlier
dismissal dated 14.2.2008.
3(ii). So far as Charges I and II are concerned
[ with respect to delayed dispatch of Registered Parcel
No 4630 on 5.3.2007 and Registered Parcel No 4664
on 21.03.2007 ], Reply Affidavit states that petitioner
had admitted these charges before Inquiry Officer on
18.08.2007 owing moral responsibility. It is averred
that so far as Charge No III, including Sub-Charges
(i) to (iv) are concerned, the petitioner had denied
the charges and had pleaded not guilty [ with respect
to Registered Parcel No 4669 on 23.03.2007 ]. It is
averred that a Preliminary Inquiry was conducted
by Suram Singh Banyal, Inspector Post Offices Baijnath
and based on the statements recorded before the
Preliminary Inquiry Officer and the deposition made
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 12 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
by witnesses in the regular inquiry, the Charge(s)
High Court of H.P.
was proved against the petitioner. It was averred that
allegations of falsification of records and tampering
of Parcel No 4669 on 23.03.2007 and recovery of
two answer sheets of 10+2 [ relating to the son of
petitioner and daughter of another employee ] were
recovered from the house of petitioner. Reply Affidavit
stated that petitioner was guilty of gross misconduct
in performance of official duties and therefore, fresh
orders were passed on 17.11.2011, after considering
the judgement of acquittal passed by Trial Court.
Respondents had placed reliance on Annexure R-1
to R-11, i.e. statements and abstract of documents,
including decision rejecting the request for supplying
documents. In these circumstances, the Respondents
have opposed the claim, with prayer for dismissing
the petition.
REJOINDER TO REPLY FILED IN OA No 1323/
HP/2012:
3(iii). In response to the Reply filed in OA 1323/
HP /2012, petitioner filed a Rejoinder, controverting
the stand taken in the reply and reiterating the pleas
taken in the OA.
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 13 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY TRIBUNAL ON
30.09.2014 IN O.A. No 1323 /HP /2012
3(iv). Tribunal decided O A No 1323 / HP /2012,
High Court of H.P.
on 30.09.2014, [Annexure P-5], {referred to as the
Impugned Order} with the findings [in Para 12]
that the charges in the departmental proceedings
have been proved and there was no lacuna in
conduct of these proceedings; and the findings
[in Para 12] that the charge in criminal case was
a limited one whereas the charge in departmental
proceedings contained additional charges and mere
acquittal will not automatically lead to quashing the
punishment order; with the findings [in Para 12]
that in compliance to earlier orders passed by the
Tribunal on 09.09.2011, fresh orders were passed
on 17.11.2011 after affording personal hearing by
reiterating the dismissal from 14.02.2008, in view
of the incident of tampering of records and the
act of detaining and delaying the parcel containing
answer sheets, which were recovered by the SHO
from the residence of the petitioner revealed serious
misconduct and misdemeanor on the part of the
petitioner and such act did not warrant any leniency;
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 14 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
and the findings [in Para 13} that the punishment
High Court of H.P.
imposed on the basis of the inquiry conducted as
per procedure was not disproportionate. However,
the Tribunal passed an order [in Para 13] since the
dismissal cannot be retrospective and therefore, the
dismissal shall have prospective effect from date of
passing of fresh orders on 17.11.2011 and not from
the date of passing of earlier dismissal orders on
14.02.2008 ; with directions [in Para 14] that in case,
petitioner applies, his case may be considered for
grant of compassionate allowance so that petitioner
and his family are not rendered destitute.
GROUNDS FOR ASSAILING IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 30.09.2014 [ANNEXURE P-5] IN INSTANT
PROCEEDINGS:
4. The Impugned Order passed by Learned
Tribunal on 30.09.2014, [Annexure P-5], has been
assailed, in present petition, on the grounds, firstly ,
the findings recorded in Para 12 of the Impugned
Order that there was no lacuna in conducting
the departmental proceedings was erroneous ; and
secondly, the non-production and non-supply and
resultant refusal to furnish un-enlisted documents
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 15 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
by incompetent authority has gravely prejudiced him
High Court of H.P.
by depriving him of his right to defend and the non
-compliance of foundational safeguards vitiates entire
proceedings, including penalty; and thirdly, findings
recorded in Para 12 of Impugned Order that charges
in departmental and criminal proceedings were different
and mere acquittal will not automatically result in
quashing the punishment was erroneous in law; and
findings recorded in Para 12 of the Impugned Order
that serious misconduct and misdemeanor in tampering
and fabricating records, in delaying dispatch of parcel
containing answer sheets, which was recovered by
SHO from the residence of petitioner was perverse, is
based on ipse-dixit of Inquiry Officer and this charge
stands disproved by Trial Court in acquitting petitioner
on 17.08.2011 [Annexure A-12]; and fourthly , the
findings recorded in Para 13 of the Impugned Order
that punishment imposed on the petitioner after due
inquiry not disproportionate, is erroneous in law ; and
even mere admission on Charge No I & II cannot form
basis for imposing the harshest penalty of dismissal,
by ignoring “relevant factors” is untenable; and in
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 16 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
the alternative, action of the Respondents in not
High Court of H.P.
regularizing the period of service from the date of
passing of the earlier dismissal on 14.02.2008 [which
was set-aside by Tribunal on 09.09.2011 in OA No
900/HP/2010] till passing of fresh rejection orders
reiterating dismissal on 17.11.2011 is violative of
Fundamental Rule 54 with added fact, that once the
inquiry suffered from legal non-compliances therefore,
resultant proceedings and all adversial orders including
penalty of dismissal and its reiteration cannot stand
the test of judicial scrutiny.
STAND OF THE RESPONDENTS IN INSTANT
PROCEEDINGS:
4(i). In instant proceedings {CWP 3128 of 2015}
Respondents filed Reply-Affidavit dated 28.09.2015,
of Superintendent, Post Office Dharamshala.
5. Heard, Mr. Jeevesh Sharma, Advocate, for
petitioner-employee and Mr. Balram Sharma, Learned
Deputy Solicitor General of India with Mr. Rajeev
Sharma, Advocate, for Respondents-Union of India, in
their respective petitions and have gone through the
records.
5(i). The judgment in both matters was reserved
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 17 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
but since certain points needed clarification from
High Court of H.P.
Learned DSGI, therefore, the matter was reheard and
the judgment was reserved on 30.05.2026.
ANALYSIS:
6. Taking into account the entirety of facts
and circumstances and the material on record, this
Court is of the considered view, that the Impugned
Order passed by the Learned Tribunal on 30.09.2014
[Annexure P-5] , without adjudicating the core issue(s)
that once the foundational decision making process
i.e. departmental inquiry was faulty and bad in law,
for violation of service rules and the non-adherence
to legal compliances, then, the Impugned Order passed
by Learned Tribunal cannot sustain, and consequently,
the adversial orders, including order of dismissal of
petitioner from service on 14.02.2008 [Annexure A-1]
and all subsequent adversial orders are interdicted,
by this Court, in view of the analysis, reasons and
the discussion made in succeeding paras.
7. Now, this Court proceeds to analyse the
contentions of Learned Counsel for the petitioner-
employee.
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 18 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
8. First contention of Learned Counsel for
High Court of H.P.
the petitioner-employee is that the findings recorded
in Para 12 of Impugned Order that there was no
lacuna in the conduct of proceedings is erroneous,
when, non-adherence to procedure prescribed under
the rules and established legal principles was writ
large, vitiating the inquiry and the penalty.
The above plea has force, for the reason ,
firstly, that inquiry officer has conducted the inquiry
by giving a go-bye to the rules which govern the
procedure for conducting inquiry; and secondly, the
inquiry officer admitted inadmissible evidence which
influenced the findings and therefore the inquiry and
penalty based on such findings cannot sustain.
INQUIRY CONDUCTED IN VIOLATION OF RULE
14 (14):
8(i). Recap of factual matrix reveals that the
petitioner was Charge-sheeted under Rule 14 of the
CCS (CCA) Rules by Respondent No 4-Disciplinary
Authority on 15.06.2007 [Annexure A-5]. In response
to this, petitioner submitted his defence statement
on 13.07.2007 denying the allegations. On 2.8.2007,
Assistant Superintendent of Posts Una, Shri R S Rana
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 19 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
was appointed as Inquiry Officer and Shri Bhupesh
High Court of H.P.
Katoch was appointed as the Presenting Officer. The
Inquiry Officer conducted the hearing on 18.08.2007,
wherein, the petitioner admitted Charge No I and II
{delayed dispatch of registered parcels on next day,
owing moral responsibility} but so far as Charge
III including Sub-Charges (i) (ii) & (iv), the petitioner
pleaded not guilty {alleging failure to enter the parcel
no 4669 dated 23.03.2007 in receipt side of Parcel
Abstract and in not dispatching it to the designated
place but in falsifying and tampering the said parcel
containing the answer sheets of 10+2 Examination
of GSSS Sarimolag, out of which two answer sheets
relating to son of the petitioner and daughter of
one Radha Devi, GDS Packer of the same post office
were recovered from residence of petitioner}.
8(ii). During the course of inquiry on 18.08.2007,
the Presenting Officer produced 22 documents {as
detailed in Annexure A-III of Charge Sheet} to the
Inquiry Officer which were collected from the office
of Secretary HPBOSE Dharamsala and from the
office of Sub-Record Officer [Pathankot Railway Mail
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 20 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
Service}. In addition, these documents also included
High Court of H.P.
other records relating to Sub-Post Office Sari-Molag,
which were also enclosed with the Reply-Affidavit by
the Respondents. The stand taken in Para 1 of the
Reply-Affidavit, to the instant writ petition, reads as
under:
REPLY ON MERITS:
….Further it is submitted that during
departmental investigation, it also
came to notice that Registered
Parcel No 4630 dated 5.3.2007 and
4664 dated 21.03.2007 booked at Molag
Sub Post Office containing answer
sheets of 10+2 examination of son
of the applicant and daughter of
Smt. Radha Devi, Gramin Dak Sewak
Packer, Molag Sub Post Office along
with other candidates were also
detained and dispatched on the next
dates of their booking. Initially, the
petitioner maintained that these
parcels were correctly dispatched on
the very dates of their booking. But
copies of postal receipts of these
Parcels obtained from the office of
Secretary HPBOSE Dharamsala and
those of Parcel lists from Sub
Record Officer [Pathankot Railway
Mail Service] depicted another story
and gross falsification/manipulations
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 21 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
in the office record came to light as
detailed below:-
High Court of H.P.
(i). The Registered Parcel No. 4630 booked
on 5.3.2007 as evident from postal
receipt [Annexure R-1] was shown
booked and dispatched on the same
date to Pathankot RMS as per office
copy of Parcel List dated 5.3.2007
[Annexure R-2] and parcel abstract
dated 5.3.2007 [Annexure R-3]. But
the parcel was actually dispatched
on 6.3.2007 as entered in the
carbon copy of Parcel list dated
6.3.2007 [Annexure R-4] collected from
Pathankot RMS, whereas the office
copy of said parcel list dated 6.3.2007
carries no entry of the said parcel
[Annexure R-5].
(ii). Similarly, Registered Parcel No. 4664
booked on 21.03.2007 [copy of postal
receipt enclosed as [Annexure R-6]
was dispatched on 22.03.2007 to
Pathankot RMS by adopting another
Modus Operandi. The Registered
Parcel No 4669 was neither shown
booked on the said date nor
dispatched as evident from the Parcel
Abstract. When asked to explain these
manipulations, the petitioner could
not give any satisfactory explanation….”
8(iii). Perusal of Inquiry proceedings as made
available to this Court, indicates that 5 additional
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 22 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
documents {dated 23-03-2007 regarding the charge
High Court of H.P.
no III, relating to Sub Post Office Sarimolag} were
produced by the Presenting Officer before the Inquiry
Officer on 29-09-2007.
8(iv). A bare look at the Inquiry Report dated
04-01-2008, {Annexure A-7} reveals that the Inquiry
Officer held Charge No III as proved, {at pages 137
to 140 of paper book}, on the basis of documents
(i.e. S-9) produced in regular inquiry on 06-11-2007
at the instance of one Shri Suram Singh Banyal,
(SW-9) who had collected these documents during
the preliminary inquiry in the matter.
8(v). In backdrop of facts in Para 8(i) to 8 (iv)
supra, core issue is, as to whether the Inquiry
Officer could hold the charge as proved merely by
tendering or producing documents without proving
contents of such documents and without giving
an opportunity to delinquent employee to cross-
examine the author or competent person having
knowledge of aforesaid document (s) ?
MANIFEST VIOLATION OF RULE 14 (14):
8(vi). For answering this issue, it is necessary
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 23 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
to take note of Rule 14 (14) of CCS (CCA) Rules as
High Court of H.P.
under:-
(14) On the date fixed for the inquiry,
the oral and documentary evidence
by which the articles of charge are
proposed to be proved shall be
produced by or on behalf of the
disciplinary authority. The witnesses
shall be examined by or on behalf
of the Presenting Officer and may be
cross-examined by or on behalf of
the Government servant. The Presenting
Officer shall be entitled to reexamine
the witnesses on any points on
which they have been cross-examined,
but not on any new matter, without
the leave of the inquiring authority.
The inquiring authority may also
put such questions to the witnesses
as it thinks fit .
MANDATE OF LAW-TENDERING OF DOCUMENTS
WITHOUT PROVING SAME CANNOT BE USED
AGAINST EMPLOYEE :
8(vii). The issue as to whether mere production
or tendering of a document, without proving the
contents thereof by examining the witnesses, can
be relied upon against an employee in departmental
proceedings, stands answered in the negative, by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi vs
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 24 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
Punjab National Bank and others, (2009) 2 SCC
570 that the mere production of documents is not
High Court of H.P.
enough but the contents of the said documents are
to be proved by examining witnesses, in following
terms:
14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding
is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The
Enquiry Officer performs a quasi-judicial
function. The charges levelled against
the delinquent officer must be found
to have been proved. The enquiry
officer has a duty to arrive at a
finding upon taking into consideration
the materials brought on record by
the parties. The purported evidence
collected during investigation by
the Investigating Officer against all
the accused by itself could not be
treated to be evidence in the
disciplinary proceeding. No witness
was examined to prove the said
documents . The management witnesses
merely tendered the documents
and did not prove the contents
thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was
placed by the Enquiry Officer on the
FIR which could not have been treated
as evidence.
15. We have noticed hereinbefore that
the only basic evidence whereupon
reliance has been placed by the Enquiry
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 25 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
Officer was the purported confession
made by the appellant before the
High Court of H.P.
police. According to the appellant, he
was forced to sign on the said
confession, as he was tortured in the
police station. Appellant being an
employee of the bank, the said
confession should have been proved.
Some evidence should have been
brought on record to show that he
had indulged in stealing the bank
draft book. Admittedly, there was
no direct evidence. Even there was
no indirect evidence. The tenor of
the report demonstrates that the
Enquiry Officer had made up his
mind to find him guilty as otherwise
he would not have proceeded on the
basis that the offence was committed
in such a manner that no evidence
was left.
17. In Moni Shankar v. Union of India
and Anr, [(2008) 3 SCC 484], this Court
held:
17. The departmental proceeding is
a quasi-judicial one. Although the
provisions of the Evidence Act are not
applicable in the said proceeding,
principles of natural justice are required
to be complied with. The Court
exercising power of judicial review are
entitled to consider as to whether while
inferring commission of misconduct
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 26 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
on the part of a delinquent officer
relevant piece of evidence has been
High Court of H.P.
taken into consideration and irrelevant
facts have been excluded therefrom .
Inference on facts must be based
on evidence which meet the
requirements of legal principles. The
Tribunal was, thus, entitled to arrive
at its own conclusion on the premise
that the evidence adduced by the
department, even if it is taken
on its face value to be correct in its
entirety, meet the requirements of
burden of proof, namely-preponderance
of probability. If on such evidences, the
test of the doctrine of proportionality
has not been satisfied, the Tribunal
was within its domain to interfere.
We must place on record that the
doctrine of unreasonableness is giving
way to the doctrine of proportionality."
23. Furthermore, the order of the
disciplinary authority as also the
appellate authority are not supported
by any reason. As the orders passed
by them have severe civil consequences,
appropriate reasons should have been
assigned. If the enquiry officer had
relied upon the confession made by
the appellant, there was no reason
as to why the order of discharge
passed by the Criminal Court on the
basis of self-same evidence should
not have been taken into consideration.
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 27 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
The materials brought on record
pointing out the guilt are required to be
High Court of H.P.
proved. A decision must be arrived
at on some evidence, which is legally
admissible. The provisions of the
Evidence Act may not be applicable
in a departmental proceeding but the
principles of natural justice are. As
the report of the Enquiry Officer was
based on merely ipse dixit as
also surmises and conjectures,
the same could not have been
sustained. The inferences drawn by
the Enquiry Officer apparently were
not supported by any evidence.
Suspicion, as is well known, however
high may be, can under no
circumstances be held to be a
substitute for legal proof.
8(vii-a). A document which was merely tendered
or produced but without it being proved by way
of oral evidence cannot be relied upon or used
against an employee, stands mandated by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs Saroj
Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772, in the following
terms:
28. An inquiry officer acting in a quasi
judicial authority is in the position
of an independent adjudicator. He is
not supposed to be a representative of
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 28 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
the department/disciplinary authority/
Government. His function is to examine
High Court of H.P.
the evidence presented by the
department, even in the absence of
the delinquent official to see as to
whether the unrebutted evidence is
sufficient to hold that the charges
are proved. In the present case the
aforesaid procedure has not been
observed. Since no oral evidence has
been examined, the documents have
not been proved, and could not
have been taken into consideration
to conclude that the charges have
been proved against the respondents.
8(vii-b). The issue as to whether the contents of
a document be treated or held to be proved in the
departmental proceedings, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has mandated in State of Uttar Pradesh through
Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayati
Raj, Lucknow vs Ram Prakash Singh, 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 891, that a document does not become
admissible in evidence by its mere production or
tendering unless such document was duly proved
by examining competent persons who are bound to
speak about the veracity of aforesaid documents, in
following terms:
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 29 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
9. There could be no iota of doubt
that the enquiry in the present case
High Court of H.P.
was conducted by the Enquiry Officer
in clear disregard of the 1999 Rules
relating to conduct of disciplinary
proceedings against the employees of
the appellant.
12 M/s. Bareilly Electricity Supply
Company Limited v. The Workmen and
Others is a decision arising from an
award under the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947. Law has been laid down
therein as follows:
“9. … Innumerable statements, letters,
balance-sheet, profit and loss account
and other documents called for or
otherwise were filed on behalf of the
appellants. It cannot be denied that
the mere filing of any of the
aforementioned documents does not
amount to proof of them and unless
these are either admitted by the
respondents or proved they do not
become evidence in the case .
14. … But the application of principle
of natural justice does not imply
that what is not evidence can be
acted upon . On the other hand what
it means is that no materials can
be relied upon to establish a contested
fact which are not spoken to by
persons who are competent to speak
about them and are subjected to
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 30 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
cross-examination by the party against
whom they are sought to be used.
High Court of H.P.
When a document is produced in
a Court or a Tribunal the questions
that naturally arise is, is it a genuine
document, what are its contents and
are the statements contained therein
true. When the appellant produced
the balance-sheet and profit and
loss account of the company, it does
not by its mere production amount
to a proof of it or of the truth
of the entries therein. If these entries
are challenged the appellant must prove
each of such entries by producing
the books and speaking from the
entries made therein. If a letter or
other document is produced to establish
some fact which is relevant to the
enquiry the writer must be produced
or his affidavit in respect thereof
be filed and opportunity afforded to
the opposite party who challenges
this fact.… ”
(emphasis ours)
14. What follows from a conjoint reading
of the above two decisions is and what
applies here is that, ‘materials brought
on record by the parties’ (to which
consideration in the enquiry ought to
be confined) mean only such materials
can be considered which are brought
on record in a manner known to
law. Such materials can then be
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 31 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
considered legal evidence, which can
be acted upon. Though the Indian
High Court of H.P.
Evidence Act, 1872 is not strictly
applicable to departmental enquiries,
which are not judicial proceedings,
nevertheless, the principles flowing
therefrom can be applied in specific
cases. Evidence tendered by witnesses
must be recorded in the presence of
the delinquent employee, he should
be given opportunity to cross-examine
the witnesses and no document should
be relied on by the prosecution without
giving copy thereof to the delinquent-
all these basic principles of fair
play have their root in such Act. In
such light, the documents referred
to in the list of documents forming
part of the annexures to the
chargesheet, on which the department
seeks to rely in the enquiry, cannot
be treated as legal evidence worthy
of forming the basis for a finding
of guilt if the contents of such
documents are not spoken to by
persons competent to speak about
them. A document does not prove
itself. In the enquiry, therefore, the
contents of the relied on documents
have to be proved by examining
a witness having knowledge of the
contents of such document and
who can depose as regards its
authenticity. In the present case, no
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 32 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
such exercise was undertaken by
producing any witness.
High Court of H.P.
8(vii-c). In a recent judgement, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Jai Prakash Saini vs Managing Director
U P Cooperative Federation Ltd, 2026 SCC Online
SC 505 , has mandated unless the delinquent admits
the charge, the witness would have to be examined
to prove the documents, in following terms:
17. From the decisions of this Court in
Sur Enamel (supra) and Kharak Singh
(supra), followed in Chamoli District
Cooperative (supra), which deals with
similar service rules as are applicable
here, it is now settled that unless
the charged employee accepts his
guilt in clear terms, an enquiry on
the charges drawn against him would
have to be held. In the enquiry, the
employer/department would have to
take steps first to lead evidence against
the workmen/delinquent charged and
give an opportunity to him to cross
examine those witnesses. Only
thereafter, the workmen / delinquent
shall be asked whether he wants
to lead any evidence and/ or submit
an explanation about the evidence
led against him. Even in a case
based solely on documentary evidence,
unless the relied upon documents
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 33 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
are admitted by the charged employee,
a witness would have to be examined
High Court of H.P.
to prove those documents and when
so examined, the witness would
have to be tendered for cross-
examination .
Facts and material on record indicate that
the department sought to rely upon 22 “Enlisted
Documents” as mentioned in Annexure-III of Charge-
sheet dated 15-06-2007, primarily relating to Charge
no I & II and these documents were submitted to
Inquiry Officer by the Presenting Officer on 18.08.2007.
Thereafter, Presenting Officer submitted 5 Additional
Documents relating to Charge no III to the Inquiry
Officer on 29-09-2007. Reply-Affidavit(s) also states
that “Enlisted and Un-Enlisted Documents” including
postal receipts and parcel lists with respect to the
Registered Parcel no. 4630 dated 5.3.2007, Registered
Parcel No. 4664 dated 21.03.2007 and the Registered
Parcel No 4669 dated 23.03.2007 were received from
Secretary, HP Board of School Education Dharamsala
and from Sub Record Officer, Pathankot Railway Mail
Service by the Respondents and these documents
were produced in evidence without such documents
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 34 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
being proved by oral evidence during the regular
High Court of H.P.
inquiry. Even in regular departmental inquiry, though
Indian Evidence Act is not applicable stricto-senso,
but the principles for admissibility or inadmissibility
of evidence and proof of documents is necessary,
with the object that employee is not taken aback
by relying on material behind his back and even
material or document which is sought to be relied
upon should not only be produced but proved in
evidence by examining the witnesses who is author
of such document or is a competent person having
knowledge of the contents of such document(s) with
intent to safeguard foundational right of delinquent
to be afforded an opportunity to cross-examine such
witness before using or relying upon such document
against a delinquent employee. A document does
not prove by itself. Perusal of Inquiry Report dated
04-01-2008 reveals that during regular inquiry, the
Inquiry Officer has neither summoned nor examined
any departmental witness, who was author of such
documents nor competent person having knowledge
of the contents of such documents who could depose
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 35 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
about the contents of aforesaid documents collected
High Court of H.P.
from office of Secretary HP Board of School Education
or from office of Sub-Record Officer Pathankot or
from the office of Sub-Post Office Sari-molag, has
deprived the petitioner of his right to cross examine
the author or competent person having knowledge
of such documents and to assert a claim regarding
genuineness or authenticity of such documents. Inquiry
officer has relied upon and used these documents
against the petitioner. Action of Inquiry Officer in
relying upon and using “inadmissible material-
evidence” for proving the charges against petitioner,
by transgressing limits while conducting the regular
departmental inquiry leads to travesty of justice and
the same is violative of the mandate of law in Union
of India vs P Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610
{Para 12 (h)}. Even expression “oral and documentary
evidence” in Rule 14 (14) of the CCS (CCA) Rules,
enables disciplinary authority to prove the charge
on the basis of oral and documentary evidence. This
rule mandates that incase, disciplinary authority
relies on certain documents to sustain a charge, then,
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 36 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
such documents have to be proved by examining
High Court of H.P.
the author of document or by examining a competent
person having knowledge of its contents. For want
of proof of documents as required by norms and
law, entire foundation of the allegations made against
petitioner cannot sustain. The provision of Rule 14
(14) of CCS (CCA) Rules is a substantive provision
primarily having twin object, firstly, to safeguard the
interests of an employee against unpermitted act
of an employer or inquiry officer in placing reliance
on material or documents behind the back of an
employee and secondly, enabling an employee to cross
-examine the author of such document or a person
having knowledge of contents of such documents
so as to test the genuineness or veracity of any
such document, before it could be relied upon against
an employee. These two “ingredients” embedded in
Rule 14(14) are the heart and soul of conducting
a fair and transparent departmental proceedings
and that too after giving due opportunity to delinquent
employee. Action of Inquiry Officer in giving complete
go-bye to these legal compliances by accepting and
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 37 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
using “inadmissible evidence” against the petitioner,
High Court of H.P.
in derogation of Rule 14 (14) of the CCS (CCA) Rules
and the principles outlined by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the cases of Roop Singh Negi, Saroj
Kumar, Ram Prakash Singh and Jai Prakash Saini
(supra) cannot sustain. Accordingly, findings recorded
in Inquiry Report, by holding Charge No III as
proved, cannot sustain; and therefore, the inquiry
proceedings and adversial orders i.e. dismissal orders
dated 14.02.2008 and the orders dated 04.08.2008
dismissing the appeal and orders dated 31.08.2009
dismissing the revision and fresh rejection orders
dated 17.11.2011, are declared illegal and inoperative.
9. Second contention of Learned Counsel is
that the non-supply of documents despite requests
has prejudiced the petitioner by depriving him of
the right to defend himself in departmental proceedings,
which was violative of the principles of natural
justice.
9(i). For appreciating the above contention, it
is necessary to have an overview of Rule 14 (11)
(12) & (13) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, which prescribes
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 38 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
the competency to decide the relevancy of documents
High Court of H.P.
as well as the mode and manner of requisitioning
and producing documents as may be demanded by
delinquent employee, reads as under:
14(11). The inquiring authority shall, if the
Government servant fails to appear
within the specified time or refuses or
omits to plead, require the Presenting
Officer to produce the evidence by
which he proposes to prove the articles
of charge, and shall adjourn the case
to a later date not exceeding thirty
days, after recording an order that
the Government servant may, for the
purpose of preparing his defence :
(i) inspect within five days of the
order or within such further time not
exceeding five days as the inquiring
authority may allow, the documents
specified in the list referred to in
sub-rule (3);
(ii) submit a list of witnesses to be
examined on his behalf;
NOTE- If the Government servant applies
orally or in writing for the supply
of copies of the statements of witnesses
mentioned in the list referred to in
sub-rule (3), the inquiring authority
shall furnish him with such copies
as early as possible and in any case
not later than three days before the
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 39 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
commencement of the examination of
the witnesses on behalf of the disciplinary
High Court of H.P.
authority.
(iii) give a notice within ten days
of the order or within such further time
not exceeding ten days as the inquiring
authority may allow, for the discovery
or production of any documents which
are in the possession of Government
but not mentioned in the list referred
to in sub-rule (3).
NOTE: The Government servant shall
indicate the relevance of the documents
required by him to be discovered or
produced by the Government.
14(12). The inquiring authority shall , on
receipt of the notice for the discovery
or production of documents, forward the
same or copies thereof to the authority
in whose custody or possession the
documents are kept, with a requisition
for the production of the documents
by such date as may be specified in
such requisition :
Provided that the inquiring authority
may, for reasons to be recorded by it
in writing, refuse to requisition such
of the documents as are, in its opinion,
not relevant to the case .
14(13). On receipt of the requisition referred
to in sub-rule (12), every authority
having the custody or possession of
the requisitioned documents shall
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 40 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
produce the same before the inquiring
authority:
High Court of H.P.
Provided that if the authority having
the custody or possession of the
requisitioned documents is satisfied for
reasons to be recorded by it in writing
that the production of all or any of
such documents would be against
the public interest or security of
the State, it shall inform the inquiring
authority accordingly and the inquiring
authority shall, on being so informed,
communicate the information to the
Government servant and withdraw the
requisition made by it for the production
or discovery of such documents.
MANDATE OF LAW-INTERFERENCE IF NON-
SUPPLY OF DOCUMENTS CAUSES PREJUDICE:
9(ii). While outlining the tests as to whether
the non-furnishing of documents causes prejudice
to a delinquent employee in defending him properly
and effectively has been outlined by the Honble
Supreme Court in State of Patiala vs S K Sharma,
(1996) 3 SCC 364 , reads as under:
33. We may summarise the principles
emerging from the above discussion.
[These are by no means intended to
be exhaustive and are evolved keeping
in view the context of disciplinary
enquiries and orders of punishment
imposed by an employer upon the
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 41 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
employee]:
(1) An order passed imposing a
High Court of H.P.
punishment on an employee consequent
upon a disciplinary/departmental enquiry
in violation of the rules / regulations /
statutory provisions governing such
enquiries should not be set aside
automatically. The Court or the Tribunal
should enquire whether (a) the provision
violated is of a substantive nature
or (b) whether it is procedural in
character.
(2 ) A substantive provision has
normally to be complied with as
explained hereinbefore and the theory
of substantial compliance or the test
of prejudice would not be applicable
in such a case.
(3) In the case of violation of a
procedural provision, the position is
this: procedural provisions are generally
meant for affording a reasonable and
adequate opportunity to the delinquent
officer / employee. They are, generally
speaking, conceived in his interest.
Violation of any and every procedural
provision cannot be said to automatically
vitiate the enquiry held or order passed.
Except cases falling under 'no notice',
'no opportunity' and 'no hearing'
categories, the complaint of violation
of procedural provision should be
examined from the point of view of
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 42 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
prejudice, viz., whether such violation
has prejudiced the delinquent officer
High Court of H.P.
/ employee in defending himself
properly and effectively . If it is found
that he has been so prejudiced,
appropriate orders have to be made to
repair and remedy the prejudicate,
including setting aside the enquiry and
/or the order of punishment. If no
prejudice is established to have resulted
therefrom, it is obvious, no interference
is called for. In this connection, it may
be remembered that there may be
certain procedural provisions which
are of a fundamental character, whose
violation is by itself proof of The Court
may not insist on proof of prejudice
in such cases. As explained in the body
of the judgment, take a case where
there is a provision expressly providing
that after the evidence of the employer
/government is over, the employee shall
be given an opportunity to lead defence
in his evidence, and in a given case,
the enquiry officer does not give that
opportunity inspite of the delinquent
officer/employee asking for it. The
prejudice is self-evident. No proof of
prejudice as such need be called for
in such a case. To repeat, the test is
one of prejudice, i.e., whether the person
has received a fair hearing considering
all things. Now, this very aspect can
also be looked at from the point
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 43 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
of view of directory and mandatory
provisions, if one is so inclined. The
High Court of H.P.
principle stated under (4) hereinbelow
is only another way of looking at the
same aspect as is dealt with herein
and not a different or distinct principle.
(4)(a) . In the case of a procedural
provision which is not of a mandatory
characters the complaint of violation
has to be examined from the standpoint
of substantial compliance. Be that as
it may, the order passed in violation
of such a provision can be set aside
only where such violation has occasioned
prejudice to the delinquent employee.
(b) In the case of violation of a
procedural provisional which is of a
mandatory character, it has to be
ascertained whether the provision is
conceived in the interest of the person
proceeded against or in public interest.
If it is found to be the former, then it
must be seen whether the delinquent
officer has waived the said requirements
either expressly or by his conduct. If
he is found to have waived its then
the order of punishment cannot be set
aside on the ground of said violation.
If, on the other hand, it is found that
the delinquent officer/employee has not
it or that the provision could not
be waived by him, then the Court
or Tribunal should make appropriate
directions [include the setting aside
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 44 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
of the order of punishment], keeping in
mind the approach adopted by the
High Court of H.P.
Constitution Bench in B. Karunkar. The
ultimate test is always the same
viz., test of prejudice or the test of
fair hearing, as it may be called.
(5). Where the enquiry is not governed
by any rules/ regulations/ statutory
provisions and the only obligation is
to observe the principles of natural
justice or, for that matter, wherever such
principles are held to be implied by the
very nature and impact of the order
/action the Court or the Tribunal
should make a distinction between a
total violation of natural justice [rule
of audi alteram] and violation of a
facet of the said rule, as explained
in the body of the judgment. In other
words, a distinction must be made
between no opportunity" and no adequate
opportunity, i.e., between "no notice"/
"no hearing" "no fair hearing". (a) In
the case of former, the order passed
would undoubtedly be invalid [one may
call it "void" or a nullity if one chooses
to]. In such cases, normally, liberty
will be reserved for the Authority to
take proceedings afresh according to
law, i.e., in accordance with the said
rule [audi alteram partem]. (b) But
in the latter case, the effect of violation
[of a facet of the rule of audi alteram]
has to be examined from the stand
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 45 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
point of prejudice; in other words,
what the Court or Tribunal has to
High Court of H.P.
see is whether in the totality of the
circumstances, the delinquent officer/
employee did or did not have a
fair hearing and the orders to be made
shall depend upon the answer to
the said query. [It is made clear that
this principle [No.5] does not apply
in the case of rule against bias, the
test in which behalf are laid down
elsewhere.]
(6) . While applying the rule of audi
alteram partem [the primary principle
of natural justice] the Court/ Tribunal
/Authority must always bear in mind
the ultimate and over-riding objective
underlying the said rule, viz., to ensure
a fair hearing and to ensure that there
is no failure of justice. It is this objective
which should guide them in applying
the rule to varying situations that arise
before them.
(7). There may be situations where
the interests of state or public interest
may call for a curtailing of the rule of
audi alteram partem . In such situations,
the Court may have to balance public
/State interest with the requirement of
natural justice and arrive at an
appropriate decision.
9(ii-a). While reinforcing the tests as laid down
in the case of S K Sharma (supra), the issue [in
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 46 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
Para 4] as to whether the documents which were
High Court of H.P.
not proved during inquiry or the documents which
were not supplied has prejudiced an employee by the
Honble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar
Pradesh vs Ram Prakash Singh, 2025 SCC Online
891, in the following terms:
46. Imagine a scenario where the employer
seeking to get rid of an inconvenient
employee succeeds in its endeavour and
dismisses him following an enquiry,
flawed in itself, by relying on the
report of enquiry without furnishing
copy of the same to him. In such an
eventuality, the dismissed employee
while approaching a tribunal/court for
redress has to do so without having
access to the materials considered in
the report. This is best exemplified by
the present case where the report of
enquiry has neither been furnished
to the respondent nor placed on record
before all the adjudicatory fora. In the
absence of such access, can the
delinquent employee be expected to
demonstrate prejudice suffered by him ?
We are not sure how the burden can
be discharged by the employee in such
a case. This lack of access to the
report would severely hamper the ability
of the employee to demonstrate
‘prejudice’ and to build a strong case
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 47 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
for succeeding in his challenge to the
order of punishment. Besides, the lengthy
High Court of H.P.
legal process could be agonizing, and
especially without any earning, may
not only lead to financial strain and
diminished resolve but could eventually
end up with the employee abandoning
the challenge. Drawing from experience,
we understand how employers take
advantage and employ methods to
drag on proceedings for years and
thereby ensure that through the process
of ‘wear and tear’, the employee (if he
has been either dismissed or removed
from service) loses steam and, inevitably,
lacking interest in the challenge effectively
gets thrown out of the legal arena by
forces beyond his control.
47. These are vital considerations which,
in our considered opinion, need to
engage the mind of every court while
deciding to apply the test of ‘prejudice’ .
In a battle between the mighty lion
and the weak lamb when the former
is in an overpowering position, should
the courts lean in its favour and put
the weak to the sword for not having
demonstrated ‘prejudice’ when a brazen
violation of the law declared by the
Constitution Bench is brought to its
notice? Why should the mighty not
be made answerable as to why the
report of enquiry has not been furnished
and to bear whatever consequences
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 48 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
that are bound to follow its failure,
omission or neglect in this behalf ? In
High Court of H.P.
a society governed by the rule of law
and when the preambular promise
is to secure equality and justice for
all, the weak lamb is certainly entitled
in law to demand that the ratio decidendi
of B. Karunakar (supra) be followed
to the ‘T’. We regret, reliance placed
in some of the decisions primarily on
certain English decisions on whether
‘opportunity would have served any
purpose’, may not be appropriate for
acceptance in our service jurisprudence.
70. Respondent, undoubtedly, was denied
a reasonable opportunity to defend
himself in the enquiry by the appellant,
as ordained by the 1999 Rules.
The manner in which the disciplinary
proceedings were conducted and continued
against the respondent did not satisfy
the requirements of ‘due process’ . The
flaws creeping in such proceedings
have rendered the same wholly illegal.
The routine course of action in a
case, such as the present, where an
order of punishment is set aside on
grounds of breach of statutory rules
and the charged officer is not acquitted
on merits, is to remit the case to
the disciplinary authority and direct
resumption from the stage the
proceedings is found to stand vitiated.
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 49 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
9(iii). For analyzing this contention, this Court
High Court of H.P.
proceeds to divide this issue into two parts , firstly ,
as to whether the Disciplinary Authority-Respondent
no 4 could reject the request made by the petitioner
for production of un-enlisted documents by acting
contrary to rules; and secondly, as to whether the
non-supply of documents has prejudiced the petitioner
and its effect thereof.
NON-PRODUCTION AND NON-SUPPLY OF THE
UNENLISTED DOCUMENTS DEHORS STATUTORY
RULES VITIATES PROCEEDINGS:
9(iii-a). Regarding the first part , in terms of the
scheme of the CCS (CCA) Rules, the Disciplinary
Authority-Respondent no 4 issued a charge sheet
on 15.06.2007, and “Enlisted documents” and “List
of witnesses”, on which, the authorities intended to
prove the charges against the petitioner. The EnListed
Documents,” mentioned in Annexure-III to the charge
sheet, were duly supplied and there is no dispute
regarding the same. The dispute in the instant case,
relates to “non-supply of Un-Enlisted Documents”
to the petitioner and the rejection of request therefor.
Material on record reveals that in terms of the
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 50 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
mandate of the rules, the petitioner served a notice
High Court of H.P.
-request on 29-8-2007 {Annexure P-14} and again on
08-09-2007 {at page 358 of paper book} requesting
the Inquiry Officer for requisitioning and producing
18-Un-Enlisted Documents being relevant for the
purposes of defending himself and after recording
a finding that these documents were relevant, the
Inquiry Officer forwarded the request on 17.09.2007
{Annexure A-15}, directing the custodian authorities
to produce documents . Out of total 18-UnEnlisted
documents, the petitioner was permitted to inspect
5 documents on 29.09.2007 whereas Inquiry Officer
recorded the proceedings on 29-09-2007, that 5 other
documents could not be supplied as they were
found to be “not relevant” by the Respondent No4-
Disciplinary authority. Feeling aggrieved against the
rejection of request and the non-production and
non-supply of documents, petitioner again requested
the Inquiry Officer on 10.10.2007 [at page 364 of
paper book] and again on 17.10.2007 [at Page 368 of
paper book] but these requests were rejected on
23-10-2007, [Annexure P-16 at page 375] by reiterating
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 51 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
that Disciplinary Authority-Respondent No 4-Supdt of
High Court of H.P.
Post Offices Dharamshala treated these documents
as “not relevant” coupled with the fact that the stage
of supplying the documents was over.
The rejection of request and the resultant
non-supply of “Un-Enlisted Documents” to petitioner
is erroneous in law , for the reason, that firstly, on
receipt of notice-request for production of un-enlisted
documents in terms of Rule 14 (11) of the CCS
(CCA), the Inquiry Officer is bound to “examine the
relevancy of documents” in terms of Rule 14 (12)
of the rules; and secondly, in the instant case,
the Inquiry Officer recorded a categorical finding on
17.09.2007 {Annexure A-15}, that the “requisitioned
documents were relevant to the defence of petitioner-
charged officer”; and thirdly, once the Inquiry Officer
had recorded a finding approving the “relevancy of
documents” then, the action of Disciplinary Authority
-Respondent No 4 in treating the required documents
as “not relevant” was without authority of law,
when, the Rules as referred to above, solely empower
Inquiry Officer to determine relevancy of documents
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 52 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
which were sought to be requisitioned and produced
High Court of H.P.
during regular inquiry ; and fourthly, the action of
the Inquiry Officer in not ensuring the production
of documents merely on the directions-orders given
by Disciplinary Authority-Respondent No 4 impedes
the purity and fairness in departmental proceedings;
and fifthly, non-compliance of Rule 14 (13) of the
CCS (CCA) Rules is writ large, for the reason that
custodian authority having possession of documents
could refuse to forward the requisitioned records,
by recording reasons, in case, production of documents
was “against public interest or security of state”;
and sixthly, none of the eventuality existed pointing
out that the production of documents shall affect
public interest or security of state and therefore,
non-production/non-supply of documents was uncalled
for; and lastly , even, rejection of request and non-
production /non-supply of “Un-enlisted Documents ” on
the directions-orders of higher authority-disciplinary
authority, who as per the rules, did not have any
authority to intervene and give directions to Inquiry
Officer in the ongoing inquiry proceedings, so as
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 53 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
to overturn or set at naught, the conscious decision
High Court of H.P.
taken by the Inquiry Officer himself on 17.09.2007
{Annexure A-15}, that the “requisitioned documents
were relevant to the defence of the petitioner-charged
officer”. In these circumstances, non-adherence to the
statutory rules and legal compliances has resulted
in denying a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner
to defend himself in departmental proceedings.
PETITIONER GRAVELY PREJUDICED FOR NON
PRODUCTION AND NON-SUPPLY OF DOCUMENTS:
9(iii-b). Regarding the second part, that the
non-production and the non-supply of the un-enlisted
documents, resulting in initializing the prejudice and
in aggravating the prejudice, is writ large in view
of the discussion made in succeeding paras herein.
Material on record reveals that a Charge
Sheet against the petitioner on 15.06.2007, levelling
three Charges. For preparing his defence, the petitioner
made a request on 29-08-2007 {Annexure A-14} to
Inquiry Officer for ensuring the production of 18 Un-
Enlisted documents [ 13 documents at Sr no 1 to
13 and 5 other documents as (a) to (h) ] from various
authorities [ Sub Post Office Sari-molag, the Centre
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 54 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
Supdt Examination of GSSS Sari-molag; Sub-Record
High Court of H.P.
Officer RMS Pathankot (Punjab); from SHO FIR No
56 of 2007 dated 24.03.2007; results of students
of 10+2 and orders appointing Shri Om Parkash
Rana as member of Flying Squad from Secretary
Education Board Dharamshala; the previous academic
record of two students from the school and other
records from school i.e. GSSS Sari-molag (in District
Mandi) ] . Similar request was made to the Inquiry
Officer on 08-09-2007 [Annexure R-8]. Perusal of
day to day proceedings reveals that out of total 18
documents, 5 documents were not be supplied,
as these documents were treated as not relevant
by Inquiry Officer, on directions-orders of Disciplinary
Authority-Respondent No 4, [as per communication
dated 28-09-2007, Annexure R-9] . Feeling aggrieved
the petitioner submitted fresh representations on
10.10.2007 and on 17.10.2007 for producing and
supplying documents but these requests were again
rejected on 23-10-2007 [Annexure P-16] by reiterating
that Respondent No 4-Disciplinary had treated these
documents as “not relevant” coupled with the fact
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 55 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
that the stage of supplying the documents was
High Court of H.P.
over.
9 (iii-c). Prejudice initialized when, Inquiry Officer
recorded an order on 29.09.2007 and had thereafter
passed another order on 23-10-2007 [Annexure P-16],
refusing to produce and to supply the requisitioned
documents to the petitioner by acting contrary to
the CCS (CCA) Rules and that too by acting on the
directions-orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority
-higher authority, despite the fact that such higher
authority did not have any power and competency
to decide the question of “relevancy of documents”,
except in an eventuality, where, the production of
document was against public interest and security
of the state, which eventualities did not exist in
instant case. Moreover, in terms of the mandate of
Rule 14 (11)(iii) read with Rule 14 (12) & (13) of
the CCS (CCA) Rules, since the Inquiry Officer was
the designated authority to decide the question of
“relevancy of documents” and by acting in pursuit
thereof, once Inquiry Officer had recorded a finding
on 17.09.2007 [Annexure A-15], that the requisitioned
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 56 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
documents were relevant, then, the refusal and/or
High Court of H.P.
non-production and non-supply of documents has
deprived the petitioner of his valuable right to defend
himself in the disciplinary proceedings, which was
violative of the principles of natural justice.
Prejudice aggravated, as Inquiry Officer
continued with the inquiry, leading to the Inquiry
Report dated 04-01-2008 [Annexure A-7] holding the
Charge No I & II (i.e. admitted charge) as proved
and in holding the Charge No III (i) to (iv) (contested
charge) as proved against the petitioner. Even after
receipt of Inquiry Report, the petitioner submitted
a detailed representation running into 34 pages,
against the findings contained in the Inquiry Report
on 01-02-2008 [Annexure A-8], stating that the inquiry
was not conducted in a fair manner as the documents
requisitioned by petitioner for preparing his defence
were not supplied and with the additional plea that
the findings recorded qua Charge no III were perverse
and were not supported by the oral and documentary
evidence [at pages 159 to 180 of paper book] but
without considering the pleas taken in representation
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 57 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
dated the Respondent No
01-02-2008 [Annexure A-8],
High Court of H.P.
4-Disciplinary authority passed the dismissal orders on
14-02-2008 [Annexure A-1], in a casual and cryptic
manner. Even while submitting the statutory appeal
on 29-03-2008 [Annexure A-9] and the similar pleas
raised in the revision petition preferred on 16-07-2009
[Annexure A-11] stating that the inquiry conducted
without supplying documents were untenable and
even the findings recorded in the Inquiry report and
dismissal orders being perverse and not supported
by oral and documentary evidence was liable to be
set-aside. [at pages from 183 to 193, with reference
to A-9 and at pages from 203 to 260 with reference
to A-11]. Meanwhile the petitioner stood acquitted
in the criminal case originating from FIR No 56
of 2007 dated 24.03.2007 and after acquittal, the
petitioner filed OA No 900/HP/2010 and in terms
of orders dated 09-09-2011, [at page 97] the dismissal
orders, the appellate orders and revisional orders
were quashed and set-aside, with directions to pass
fresh orders, leading to passing of fresh orders on
17.11.2011 [Annexure A-3/B], reiterating the dismissal
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 58 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
orders.
Prejudice gravely aggravated , when, fresh
High Court of H.P.
rejection orders passed by the Respondent No 4 on
17.11.2011 [Annexure A-3/B], reiterating the dismissal
orders was assailed before Learned Tribunal in OA
No 1323/HP/2012, raising various pleas, including
the plea [in Para 5(i) at page 58] that the inquiry
conducted without supplying the documents, despite
requests, has resulted in depriving the petitioner of
his valuable right to prepare his defence and in
denying a reasonable opportunity to defend himself
was untenable and thus the inquiry, the inquiry
report and dismissal orders, not supported by oral
and documentary evidence was perverse, arbitrary and
unsustainable.
Perusal of communication dated 28-09-2007
[Annexure R-9, at page 406] with the Reply-Affidavit
filed by the Respondents in OA No 1323/HP/2012,
establishes that the Respondent No 4-Disciplinary
Authority had found documents to be “not relevant”,
ignoring that the aforesaid authority had “neither
any authority nor competency to decide the question
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 59 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
of relevancy of requisitioned un-enlisted documents”,
High Court of H.P.
in facts of instant case, and when, such competency
was vested in Inquiry Officer, who refused to act
impartially and independently, so as to ensure the
production of documents but had acted at the dictates
of higher authorities [as in communication dated
28-09-2007 [Annexure R-9] illegally. Fairness and
impartiality has been compromised by Inquiry Officer,
who was bound to act as an umpire but he had
acted as an agent of department by rejecting the
request for producing /supplying documents at the
dictates of Disciplinary Authority-Respondents No 4,
leading to an improper and unfair inquiry resulting
in miscarriage of justice to the petitioner, qua the
findings recorded on contested Charge No III (i) (ii)
and (iv).
Based on the above discussion, this Court
has no hesitation to hold that the petitioner has
been gravely prejudiced, for conducting departmental
inquiry in defiance of and by not adhering to the
legal compliances under the statutory rules and the
principles mandated in the case of S K Sharma
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 60 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
and Ram Prakash Singh (supra). Even, violation of
High Court of H.P.
a procedural provision [Rule 14 (11) to (13)] which
is of a mandatory character, by giving a complete
go-bye to the due process of law cannot sustain.
Moreover, action of the Inquiry Officer in depriving
the petitioner of his valuable right to prepare his
defence and to defend himself during inquiry on
the basis of the requisitioned documents, in facts
of instant case, has resulted in an improper and
unfair inquiry, leading to travesty of justice. Even,
Learned Tribunal has erred in not adjudicating
this foundational issue, which goes to the root of
the matter, by abdicating the powers and jurisdiction
vested in it. In these circumstances, the inquiry and
consequential adversial actions are interdicted and
set-aside.
10. Third contention is that Learned Tribunal
had erred in recording a finding in Para 12 of the
Impugned Order that the charges in departmental
and criminal proceedings were different and mere
acquittal in criminal case cannot be made the basis
for quashing the punishment orders in departmental
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 61 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
proceedings
is erroneous on facts and in law.
High Court of H.P.
10(i). For appreciating this contention, it is
necessary to have a recap of Charge III, including
sub-charges (i) to (iv), which was the subject matter
of departmental proceedings against the petitioner,
reads as under:
Annexure A-5
Dated: 15-06-2007
RELEVANT EXTRACT OF CHARGE SHEET
Statement of articles of Charge Sheet
framed against Sh. Trilochan Dass
Dogra SPM Molag (Placed under
suspension)
Article-1
Sh. Trilochan Dass Dogra while working
as Sub Postmaster Molag SO is alleged
to have booked a Reg. Parcel No.
4630 on 05.03.2007 containing Answer
Sheets of plus two examination (Paper
English) and shown it dispatched to
Pathankot RMS in the office copy of
Parcel list as well as Parcel abstract
dated 05.03.2007 but alleged to
have actually dispatched it on
06.03.2007 by manipulating the office
record and further alleged to have
failed to show the same in deposit
in parcel Abstract on 05.3.2007, in
violation of Rule 171 (3) and Rule
186 of Postal Man. Vol. VI Part-1
and also alleged to have not included
the above parcel of Due Mail meant
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 62 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
for dispatch on the same date as
required vide Rule 53 read with Rule
High Court of H.P.
136 of Postal Man. Vol. V. Therefore,
the said Sh. Trilochan Dass Dogra
is alleged to have falsified/manipulated
the relevant record of his office untrust
worthy in contravention of G.O.I
instructions No. 23(2) (Part-II) below
Rule 3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Article-II
Sh. Trilochan Dass Dogra is alleged
to have booked a Reg. Parcel No.
4664 on 21.03.2007 containing answer
sheets of Plus 2 exam (Paper Hindi) and
failed to dispatch it on 21.03.2007
either to Pathankot RMS for Palampur
HQ and further alleged to have shown
the same booked and dispatched on
22.03.2007 in Parcel Abstract of the
date. The said Shri Trilochan Dass
Dogra is further alleged to have failed
to show the same in deposit on
21.03.2007 as required of him vide
Rule 171 (3) and Rule 186 of Postal
Manual Vol. VI Part-1 and therefore,
alleged to have falsified the relevant
record of his office untrust worthy,
in violation of GOI instructions No
23(2) (Part-II) below Rule 3 of CCS
(Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Article-III
(i). Sh. Trilochan Dass Dogra while
working as SPM Molag SO had booked
Reg Parcel No.4669 containing Answer
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 63 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
Sheets of Plus two examination (Paper
History) at 1230 hours on 23.03.2007
High Court of H.P.
and alleged to have failed to enter
the particulars thereof on the receipt
side of the Parcel Abstract of the
date, in violation of Rule 171 (3) of
Postal Man. Vol. VI Part-1.
(ii). The said official is alleged to
have failed to dispatch the above
Regd. Parcel no.4669 to its destination
in violation of Rule 53 read with Rule
136 of Postal Manual Vol. V and also
alleged to have failed to show the
same in deposit on 23.03.2007 in
Parcel Abstract, in violation of Rule
186 of Postal Manual Vol. VI Part-I
and further alleged to have shown
dispatched two parcels in the parcel
Abstract dated 23.3.2007 but actually
dispatched only one Regd Parcel No
4668, duly entered in the Parcel
list dated 23.3.2007 and thus alleged
to have falsified the relevant record
untrust worthy, in violation of GOI
instructions No.23(2) of Part-II, below
Rule 3 of CCS (Conduct) Rule, 1964.
(iii). Sh. Trilochan Dass Dogra is
alleged to have left the office during
working hrs on 23-03-2007 in violation
of Rule 62 of Postal Manual Vol III
and failed to afford proper custody
to office keys violating the provision
of rule 21(3) of Postal Man. Vol.VI
Part-1.
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 64 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
(iv). The said Sh. Trilochan Dass
Dogra is alleged to have detained
High Court of H.P.
and tampered the Regd Parcel No
4669 containing answer sheets of plus
two exam (Paper History) in which
his son and daughter of Smt. Radha
Devi GDS packer Molag had appeared
under Roll No 95149 and 95115
respectively. The answer sheets bearing
above Roll Nos are alleged to have
been recovered/seized by the Police
from the residence of the said Sh.
Trilochan Dass Dogra. Thus, the said
official is alleged to have acted untrust
worthy and against the interest and
reputation of his master in
contravention of GOI instructions No.
23(2) of (Part-II) and instruction No 23
(1, 3, 5) Part-II below Rule 3 of CCS
(Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Therefore, the said Sh. Trilochan Dass
Dogra by his above acts as outlined
in Articles-1 to III, is alleged to have
violated the provision of Rule 38 of
Postal Manual Vol. VI Part-I and
also alleged to have failed to maintain
absolute integrity, devotion to duty and
has acted in a manner unbecoming
of a Govt servant as enjoined upon
him vide Rule 3 (1) (i), (ii) and (iii)
of CCS (Conduct) Rule, 1964.
10(i-a). The above charges were sought to be
proved on the basis of 22 documents as mentioned
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 65 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
in Annexure-III to charge-sheet {Memorandum of
High Court of H.P.
Charges}, by examining 9 witnesses, as mentioned
in Annexure-IV to charge-sheet, read as under:
Annexure A-III
List of documents by which the articles
of Charge framed against Shri Trilochan
Dass Dogra SPM Molag (Under Suspension) are
proposed to be sustained.
1-4. Written statements of Shri Trilochan
Dass Dogra SPM Molag recorded by the
IPO Baijnath on 3.4.2007, 16.5.2007,
28.5.2007 and 13.6.2007.
5. Office copy of Parcel List dated 5.3.2007
of Molag SO meant for Pathankot RMS.
6. Carbon copy of Parcel List dated
6.3.2007 of Molag SO Meant for
Pathankot RMS.
7. Photocopy of Postal Receipt issued on
5.3.2007 for booking of Regd Parcel
No. 4630 at Molag S.O.
8-9. Office Copies of Parcel Lists dated
21.03.2007 and 22.3.2007 of Molag
S.O Meant for Pathankot RMS.
10-11.Carbon copies of Parcel Lists dated
21.3.2007 and 22.03.2007 of Molag S.O
meant for Pathankot RMS.
12. Photocopy of Postal Receipts issued on
21.03.2007 for booking of Regd. Parcel
No. 4664 at Molag S.O.
13. Written statement of Sh. Amar Singh
(Sevadar) Govt. Sr. Sec. School Sari
Molag dated 28.03.2007 recorded by
the IPO Baijnath.
14-16.Written statement of Smt. Radha Devi
GDS packer Molag dated 24.03.2007,
25.03.2007 and 14.05.2007 recorded by
the IPO Baijnath.
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 66 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
17. Written statement of Shri Raghubir
Singh P/T Chowkidar Molag S.O. dated
19.04.2007 recorded by the IPO
Baijnath.
High Court of H.P.
18. Written statement of Shri Ravinder
Singh Rana (Dy. Centre Supdt.) Lecturer
Govt. Sr. Sec. School Sari Molag dated
28.03.2007 recorded by the IPO Baijnath.
19. Written statement of Shri Om Parkash
Rana (Member of Flying Squad) Lecturer,
Govt Sr. Sec. School Sari Molag dated
17.4.2007 recorded by the IPO Baijnath.
20. Written statement of SHO, P.S.
Lambagaon , dated 19.4.2007 recorded
by the IPO Baijnath.
21. Letter No 996/5 A dated 21.5.2007 sent
by SHO Lambagaon A/T IPO Baijnath.
22. Parcel Abstract of Molag SO dated
5.3.2007, 6.3.2007, 21.3.2007, 22.3.2007
and 23.3.2007 .
Sd/-
Supdt. Post Offices,
Dharamsala Division.
Annexure A-IV
List of Witnesses by whom the articles
of Charge framed against Shri Trilochan
Dass Dogra SPM Molag (under suspension)
are proposed to be sustained.
1. Shri Amar Singh (Sevadar), Govt. Sr.
Sec. School, Sari Molag.
2. Shri Ravinder Singh Rana (Dy. Centre
Supdt.) Lecturer, Govt. Sr. Sec. School
Sari Molag.
3. Shri Om Parkash Rana (Lecturer) Govt.
Sr. Sec. School, Sari Molag.
4. Smt. Radha Devi, GDS Packer Molag.
S.O.
5. Shri Raghbir Singh P/T Chowkidar
Molag, S.O.
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 67 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
6. Shri Tilak Raj, SHO Police Station
Lambaogaon.
High Court of H.P.
7. Shri Suram Singh Banyal, IPO Baijnath.
8. Shri Joginder Lal Mailoverseer Baijnath.
9. Smt. Simro Devi (Sevadar) Govt. Sr. Sec.
School, Sari Molag.
Sd/-
Supdt. Post Offices
Dharamsala Division, Dharamsala.
10(i-b). Pursuant to registration of FIR No 56 of
2007 dated 24.03.2007, accusation as per prosecution
story, was as under:
2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution
is that complainant Om Parkash Rana
(PW-2) was member of SDM Flying
squad. On 23.03.2007 he received a
secret information that Trilochan Post
Master, Post Office Sarimolag (hereinafter
to be referred as the accused with
whom answer sheets of 10+2 were
deposited for dispatching to the office
of HPBSE, used to take out the answer
sheet of his son Sameer studying in
10+2 in Sari-molag Government Senior
Secondary School and after getting the
same filled used to dispatch the answer
sheets next day. He narrated the matter
to Ravinder Kumar Rana (PW-3) Deputy
Superintendent, Senior Secondary School
Sarimolag who assured him to look
into the same and to check weigh the
mail bag being transmitted around
5.15 p.m in Shimla to Chadihar bus.
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 68 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
Around 5.00 p.m, they asked Sewadar
Amar Singh (PW-8) to check the mail
High Court of H.P.
bags. On checking Amar Singh (PW)
told that parcel containing answer sheets
was not in the bus. Om Parkash Rana
(PW-2) and Ravinder Kumar Rana
(PW-3) thereupon went to the house
of the accused and inquired about
the same. Accused stated to have sent
/dispatched the mail. Om Parkash (PW-2)
told him that the parcel was not in
the mail bag and that he would lodge
a complaint against him. He also narrated
the occurrence telephonically to SDM
Jaisinghpur. The accused followed them
and entered into the post office. After
sometime, he alongwith parcel of
answer sheets came out of post
office. On being asked as to what was
he carrying, he said that it was none
of their business. A scuffle ensued
in between the accused and Om
Parkash and Ravinder Kumar Rana,
as a result whereof parcel fell
and answer sheets scattered on the
ground. Om Parkash and Ravinder
Kumar Rana caught the accused
and also collected the answer sheets.
In the meanwhile SDM alongwith
Investigating Officer reached on the
spot. Immediately, hereafter investigating
officer recorded the statement of the
complainan t Om Parkash Ex PW-2/A which
ultimately led way to the registration
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 69 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
of formal FIR Ex PW-11/A against the
accused. Investigation commenced. During
High Court of H.P.
investigation, Investigating Officer SI Tilak
Raj (PW-11) prepared rough site plan
Ex.PW-11/C on the spot, took answer
sheets Ex. PW-1 to Ex. P-50, parcel
cover Ex.P-54 and brief case Ex. P-53
into possession vide Fard Ex. PW-2/A
and gave them on Superdari to Kewal
Ram Verma (PW-1) and procured photo
copies of 50 answer sheets vide Fard
Ex.PW-1/D. Investigating Officer SI Tilak
Raj (PW-11) who recorded disclosure
statement of the accused Ex. PW-2/B
and pursuant thereto recovered answer
sheets of Roll No 95115 and 95149
Ex. P-51 and Ex.P-52 vide Fard Ex.
PW-2/C, prepared sought site plan qua
the place of recovery . Investigating
Officer SI Tilak Raj (PW-11) gave answer
sheets Ex.P-51 over Ex P-52 to Kewal
Ram Verma (PW-1) on superdari vide
Fard Ex.PW-1/A and also obtained
photocopies thereof. Investigating Officer
SI Tilak Raj also procured postal receipts
Ex.P-54-1, obtained identification book
of 10+2 morning session Ex. PW-12/A,
parcel abstracts Ex PW-5/A and Ex.
PW-5/B and prosecution sanction Ex.
PW-11/N. The investigating Officer SI
Tilak Raj (PW-11) also retained seal
impressions Ex PW-2/F, Ex PW-11/P,
Ex.PW-2/E and Ex.PW-2/D and recorded
the statements of the witnesses. On
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 70 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
completion of investigation and on being
satisfied of the commission of offence
High Court of H.P.
punishable under Section 409 of IPC,
charge sheet against the accused was
presented in the Court.
3. Charge under Section 409 of IPC was
framed against the accused to which
he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. The following points arise for
determination in the present case:
(1). Whether the prosecution has
succeeded in proving beyond
reasonable doubt that on
23.03.2007 around 5.15 p.m the
accused posted as post master post
office Sarimolag, being entrusted
with a parcel containing answer
sheets dishonestly misappropriated
or converted them to his own use
and willfully and unauthorizedly
delayed the transmission thereof to
the office of HPBSE?
(2). Final Order.
10(i-c). In criminal case, the prosecution sought
to prove the charge on the basis of following PWs
and documents:-
List of witnesses
Sr. No. Name of witnesses
1. PW1 Kewal Ram Verma PW
2. PW2 Om Prakash -do-
3. PW3 Ravinder Kumar -do-
4. PW4 Ashwani Kumar -do-
5. PW5 Bhuvesh Katoch -do-
6. PW6 Champa Devi -do-
7. PW7 Jagdish Chand -do-
8. PW8 Amar Singh -do-
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 71 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
9. PW9 Raghubir Singh -do-
10. PW10 Roshan Lal -do-
11. PW11 SI Tilak Raj -do-
12. PW12 Salig Ram -do-
13. PW13 HC Subhash Chand -do-
High Court of H.P.
List of Exhibits
Sr No Date of Exhibits Description of
Exhibits
1. Ex.PW1/D 5.6.2008 Fard
and postal receipt
Ex. P 54-1
2. Ex.PW2/A 10.6.09 Statement
U/S 154 CrPC
3. Ex.PW2/B -do- Statement U/S 27 of
Evidence Act
4. Ex.PW2/C -do-Fard qua answer
Sheets
5. Ex.PW2/D -do- Recovery Fard
6. Ex.PW2/E -do-Recovery Fard
7. Ex.PW2/F -do-Recovery Fard
8. Ex.PW5/A&B 24.5.2010
P arcel abstracts
9. Ex.PW11/A 24.03.2007 FIR
(sic 16-07-2007}
10. Ex.PW10/C 16.7.2010
Site plan
11. Ex.PW2/A1 10.6.2009 Fard qua
Ex.P53 to P55
12. Ex.PW1/A 5.6.2008 Fard qua
Ex.P53
13. Ex.PW1/C -do-Application for
Obtaining
photocopies of
answer sheets
14. Ex.PW1/B -do-
15. Ex.PW11/D -do- 16.7.2010
16. Ex.PW11/E -do-Application for
obtaining receipt
of parcel
17. Ex.PW11/M 16.7.2010 Application
for obtaining
prosecution sanction
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 72 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
18. Ex.PW11/N -do- Prosecution sanction
19. Ex.PW11/O -do-Letter dt.14.8.2007
High Court of H.P.
20. Ex.PW11/F -do-Rapat No. 19
21. Ex.P1 to 50 5.6.2008 Answer sheets
22. Ex.Pw2/D 10.6.2009 Sample seals
to Ex.PW2/F
23. Ex.PW11/P -do-16.7.2010
24. Ex.PW4/A 11.12.2009 Application
obtaining copies of
answer sheets
25. Ex.P 51 5.6.2005 Answer sheets
& Ex.P 52
26. Ex.PW11/G 16.7.2010 Statements
u/s161 CrPC
27. Ex.PW12/A 18.9.2010 Photocopies
of identification books
10(i-d). Consequent upon the trial, petitioner was
acquitted of the charges by the Learned Trial Court
on 17.08.2011 [Annexure A-12], in the following terms:
24. The accused has not refuted his being
post master in post office Sarimolag at
the relevant time. He, however, has
denied the charges against him and
has claimed innocence .
25. The aforesaid being the admitted and
disputed facts, the prosecution, it in
order to succeed was/is required to
prove that:
(i). SDM Jaisinghpur Jagdish, PW-7
had constituted a flying squad
consisting of Om Parkash and
Ravinder Kumar.
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 73 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
(ii). That flying squad on 23.07.2007
around 5.15 p.m at Sarimolag
High Court of H.P.
found accused’s having opened
the parcel containing history
answer sheets of 10+2
examination having removed two
answer sheets of roll number
95149 and 95115 and having
delayed transmission of the parcel;
(iii). That accused made disclosure
statement Ex.PW-2/B and
pursuance thereto got the removed
answer sheets of Roll number
95149 and 95115 recovered.
26. Coming to the first point, Jagdish
Chand, SDM Jaisinghpur (PW-7) has
stated that flying squad is constituted
in writing and duties of its members
are also specified in writing. He has
admitted that duration of duty is
specifically provided and daily proceedings
of the flying squad are maintained.
In the case in hand, however,
neither constitution of flying squad
nor its duty abstract is there on
the record nor it admittedly has
been taken into police possession by
the Investigating Officer (PW-11). Jagdish
Chand SDM Jaisinghpur (PW-7) though
has stated that he being SDM had
initiated proceedings of the instant case
yet he unequivocally has admitted
that he had not authorized Om
Parkash (PW-2) and Ravinder Rana
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 74 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
(PW-3) to take parcel of the answer
sheets from the post office.
High Court of H.P.
27. It, thus, is evident that there is nothing
on record qua constitution of SDM
flying squad and Om Parkash (PW-2)
and Ravinder Kumar (PW-3) having been
authorized to take parcel containing
answer sheets of 10+2 history examination
from the post office.
28. Aforesaid lapse, if is ignored and it is
assumed for a while that SDM flying
squad was duly constituted and that
it comprised of Om Parkash (PW-2)
and Ravinder (PW-3), even then the
prosecution is not absolved of its
duty to prove tampering of parcel by
the accused . The prosecution witnesses,
however, have come up with different
versions qua alleged recovery of
tampered parcel and 50 answer sheets
from the accused:
(i). As Om Parkash (PW-2) has stated
that immediately after coming to
know that the parcel containing
answer sheets had not been
dispatched to HPBSE, he alongwith
Ravinder Kumar (PW-3) rushed
to the house of the accused to
inquire about the same, whereas,
Ravinder Kumar (PW-3) has stated
that they immediately on coming
to know qua the same rushed to
the post office ;
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 75 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
(ii). As Om Prakash (PW-2) has stated
that answer sheets recovered from
High Court of H.P.
the accused were lying in an
open parcel , whereas Ravinder
Kumar (PW-3), who admittedly had
closed and sealed parcel containing
answer sheets has stated that
parcel containing answer sheets of
10+2 history examination was
intact and had opened only when
it had fallen on the ground ;
(iii). As Om Parkash (PW-2) has stated
that answer sheets had fallen the
moment they had apprehended
the accused whereas Ravinder
Kumar (PW-3) has stated that
answer sheets had fallen from
the parcel when they were
going to the principal office .
29. Om Parkash (PW2) and Ravinder Kumar
(PW3) though have given varied counts
of the counts aforesaid, yet, they
both alike have stated that they had
not counted the answer sheets and
thus did not know as to how many
answer sheets parcel contained and
answer sheets of which roll number,
if any, was missing. Not only this
Ravinder Kumar (PW3) even had gone
to the extent that answer sheets for
the first time were counted by
board officials. Interesting to note
that no board official to this effect
and answer sheets' being deficit in
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 76 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
number, however, has been examined
by the prosecution.
High Court of H.P.
31. The prosecution, thus, has also failed
to prove initial recovery of torn
parcel and 50 answer sheets from the
accused.
32. Now coming to the recovery of answer
sheets of Roll Nos 95149 and 95115,
it has also not been established on
the record for the following reasons:
(i) as Om Parkash (PW2) and
Ravinder Kumar (PW3) the alleged
witnesses to disclosure statement
of the accused Ex.PW2/B have
denied making of such statement
by the accused;
(ii) as Om Parkash (PW2) and
Ravinder Kumar (PW3) the alleged
witnessed to recovery fard Ex.
PW2/C per which two answer
sheets of roll nos 95149 and
95115 were recovered from the
house of the accused have
denied to have witnessed said
recovery rather have stated that
they never went to the house
of the accused nor did know
as to where was / is it situate ;
(iii) as Om Parkash (PW2) and
Ravinder Kuinar (PW3) have stated
that their signatures on recovery
fard dt. 24.3.2007 Ex. PW2/C
and dt 23.3.2007 Ex.PW2/A1 were
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 77 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
taken simultaneously that too
without disclosing contents thereof
High Court of H.P.
to them.
32. Aforesaid being evidence, it can safely
be concluded that the prosecution
has failed to prove dishonest
misappropriation of the parcel containing
52 answer sheets and conversion thereof
to his own use by the accused more
so when there is nothing on the record
that parcel cover dispatched from the
school contained specific identification
of its contents. Similarly, failure of
the accused to dispatch the parcel
on 23.3.2007 as is evident from the
parcel abstract Ex. PWS/), at the most
can be said to be negligence on his
part, however, it in the light of evidence
accused supra in no manner could
be construed as willful detention
of the parcel containing 52 answer
sheets by him with some ulterior motive
or malafide intention.
33. In view of above, it can safely be
concluded that the prosecution has
failed to prove the instant case beyond
reasonable doubt. This point, thus, is
decided against the prosecution and is
answered in negative.
34. In view of my findings returned on
the point No.1 above, the accused is
held not guilty and is acquitted of
the charge U/S 409 of IPC….”
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 78 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
Sd/-
st
Judicial Magistrate 1 Class (2)
Palampur, District Kangra, H.P.
High Court of H.P.
MANDATE OF LAW-EFFECT OF ACQUITTAL ON
DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY:
10(ii). In normal parlance , the mandate of law
encompasses that if an employee is acquitted in a
criminal case, then, mere acquittal does not preclude
the employer from taking action, if it is otherwise
permissible. Since the degree of proof in criminal
proceedings mandates to prove the guilt “beyond
all reasonable doubts” whereas the degree of proof
for recording commission of delinquency is based
on “preponderance of probabilities.” Mere acquittal
in criminal proceedings does not absolve an employee
from liability under the disciplinary jurisdiction, in
terms of the mandate of the Honble Supreme Court
in the case of Depot Manager APSRTC vs Mohd
Yusuf Miya, (1997) 2 SCC 699, and then in the
case of Ajit Kumar Nag vs General Manager (P),
Indian Oil Corporation, Haldia & Ors (2005) 7
SCC 764, and in Noida Entrepreneur’s Association
vs NOIDA & Ors (2007) 10 SCC 385 , and in
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 79 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
Union of India vs Dalbir Singh, (2021) 11 SCC
321, these principles have been reiterated.
High Court of H.P.
10(ii-a). Exception to general principle has been
outlined that once charges, grounds and evidence in
criminal case and the departmental proceedings were
same then, in case of honourable acquittal it would
not be expedient to continue with the departmental
proceedings, in view of the principle outlined by
the Honble Supreme Court in Corpn of the City
of Nagpur vs Ramchandra (1981) 2 SCC 714 , in
the following terms:
6. The other question that remains is
if the respondents are acquitted in
the criminal case whether or not the
departmental inquiry pending against
the respondents would have to continue.
This is a matter which is to be decided
by the department after considering
the nature of the findings given by
the criminal court. Normally where
the accused is acquitted honorably
and completely exonerated of the
charges it would not be expedient
to continue a departmental inquiry
on the very same charges or grounds
or evidence , but the fact remains,
however, that merely because the
accused is acquitted, the power of the
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 80 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
authority concerned to continue the
departmental inquiry is not taken
High Court of H.P.
away nor is its direction (discretion)
in any way fettered. "
10(ii-b). The principle that once the charges in
criminal case and departmental proceedings were
based on identical set of facts and were sought
to be proved by same set of witnesses and after
honourable acquittal, it would be unjust, unfair and
oppressive to allow findings recorded in departmental
proceedings to stand, in terms of the mandate of
the Honble Supreme Court in the case Capt M Paul
Antony vs Bharat Gold Mines Ltd, (1999) 3 SCC
679 , as under:
34. There is yet another reason for
discarding the whole of the case of the
respondents. As pointed out earlier,
the criminal case as also the
departmental proceedings were based
on identical set of facts , namely
"the raid conducted at the appellant's
residence and recovery of incriminating
articles therefrom. The findings recorded
by the enquiry officer , a copy of which
has been placed before us, indicate
that the charges framed against the
appellant were sought to the proved
by police officers and panch witnesses,
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 81 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
who had raided the house of the
appellant and had effected recovery.
High Court of H.P.
They were the only witnesses examined
by the enquiry officer and the enquiry
officer, relying upon their statements,
came to the conclusion that the
charges were established against the
appellant. The same witnesses were
examined in the criminal case but
the Court, on a consideration of the
entire evidence, came to the conclusion
that no search was conducted nor
was any recovery made from the
residence of the appellant . The whole
case of the prosecution was thrown
out and the appellant was acquitted.
In this situation, therefore, where the
appellant is acquitted by a judicial
pronouncement with the finding that
the "raid and recovery" at the residence
of the appellant were not proved, it
would be unjust, unfair and rather
oppressive to allow the findings
recorded at the ex parte departmental
proceedings to stand .
10(ii-c). While deciding the issue of sustainability
of departmental proceedings and penalty, where
criminal case was instituted on same facts and
evidence without there being any iota of difference,
then, after honorable acquittal, the findings recorded
in departmental proceedings will turn out to be
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 82 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
oppressive and erroneous, in view of the mandate
of the Honble Supreme Court in G M Tank vs State
High Court of H.P.
of Gujrat (2006) 5 SCC 446, in the following terms:
31. In our opinion, such facts and evidence
in the department as well as criminal
proceedings were the same without
there being any iota of difference,
the appellant should succeed. The
distinction which is usually proved
between the departmental and criminal
proceedings on the basis of the approach
and burden of proof would not be
applicable in the instant case. Though
finding recorded in the domestic enquiry
was found to be valid by the Courts
below, when there was an honourable
acquittal of the employee during the
pendency of the proceedings challenging
the dismissal, the same requires to
be taken note of and the decision
in Paul Anthony 's case (supra) will
apply . We, therefore, hold that the
appeal filed by the appellant deserves
to be allowed.
10(ii-d). Dismissal of an employee was set-aside
in a case, where, prosecution failed to prove the
case after full consideration of prosecution evidence
in case, the charges in both proceedings were
identical or similar and evidence, witnesses and
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 83 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
. Expressions “benefit
circumstances are one and same
High Court of H.P.
of doubt” or “honorable acquittal” would not make
any difference if the judgment passed in criminal
case held the charge as “not proved or disproved,”
entitling an employee for reinstatement in service
in view of judgement of the Honble Supreme Court
in Ram Lal vs State of Rajasthan (2024) 1 SCC 175,
in following terms:
8. The following two questions arise for
consideration:
8.1(a) Whether the dismissal of the appellant
from service pursuant to the
departmental enquiry was justified ?
8.1(b) On the facts of the case, what is the
effect of the acquittal, ordered by
the Appellate Judge in the criminal
trial, on the order of dismissal passed
in the departmental enquiry?
12. However, if the charges in the
departmental enquiry and the criminal
court are identical or similar, and if the
evidence
, witnesses and circumstances
are one and the same, then the
matter acquires a different dimension.
If the court in judicial review
concludes that the acquittal in the
criminal proceeding was after full
consideration of the prosecution
evidence and that the prosecution
miserably failed to prove the charge,
the Court in judicial review can grant
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 84 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
redress in certain circumstances. The
court will be entitled to exercise its
High Court of H.P.
discretion and grant relief, if it
concludes that allowing the findings
in the disciplinary proceedings to
stand will be unjust, unfair and
oppressive. Each case will turn on
its own facts. [See G.M. Tank vs. State
of Gujarat & Others, (2006) 5 SCC
446, State Bank of Hyderabad vs.
P. Kata Rao, (2008) 15 SCC 657 and
S. Samuthiram (supra).
25. Expressions like “benefit of doubt”
and “honorably acquitted”, used in
judgments are not to be understood
as magic incantations . A court of
law will not be carried away by the
mere use of such terminology. In
the present case, the Appellate Judge
has recorded that Exh. P-3, the original
marksheet carries the date of birth
as 21.04.1972 and the same has also
been proved by the witnesses examined
on behalf of the prosecution. The
conclusion that the acquittal in the
criminal proceeding was after full
consideration of the prosecution evidence
and that the prosecution miserably
failed to prove the charge can only
be arrived at after a reading of the
judgment in its entirety. The court in
judicial review is obliged to examine
the substance of the judgment and
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 85 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
not go by the form of expression
used .
High Court of H.P.
26. We are satisfied that the findings of
the appellate judge in the criminal
case clearly indicate that the charge
against the appellant was not just,
“not proved”-in fact the charge even
stood “disproved” by the very prosecution
evidence. As held by this Court, a
fact is said to be “disproved” when,
after considering the matters before it,
the court either believes that it
does not exist or considers its non-
existence so probable that a prudent
man ought , under the circumstances
of the particular case, to act upon the
supposition that it does not exist. A
fact is said to be “not proved” when
it is neither “proved” nor “disproved”
[See Vijayee Singh and Others v. State
of U.P. (1990) 3 SCC 190].
27. We are additionally satisfied that in
the teeth of the finding of the appellate
Judge, the disciplinary proceedings
and the orders passed thereon cannot
be allowed to stand. The charges were
not just similar but identical and the
evidence, witnesses and circumstances
were all the same. This is a case where
in exercise of our discretion, we quash
the orders of the disciplinary authority
and the appellate authority as allowing
them to stand will be unjust, unfair
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 86 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
and oppressive. This case is very
similar to the situation that arose
High Court of H.P.
in G.M. Tank (supra).
30. In view of the above, we declare that
the order of termination dated
31.03.2004; the order of the Appellate
Authority dated 08.10.2004; the orders
dated 29.03.2008 and 25.06.2008
refusing to reconsider and review the
penalty respectively, are all illegal and
untenable.
10(ii-e). Once the charges, evidence, witnesses and
circumstances in departmental inquiry and criminal
case are “identical or substantially similar” then
in such a situation, the findings recorded in the
disciplinary inquiry warrant interference, in the light
of the mandate of the Honble Supreme Court in
Maharana Pratap Singh vs State of Bihar and Ors
2025 SCC Online SC 890, as under:
25. The issues for determination that
emerge for decision are:
(i) Whether due process was followed in
dismissing the appellant from service
and whether his dismissal from service
is justified, on facts and in the
circumstances, that have unfolded
before us ?
(ii) Whether, in light of the facts, evidence,
witnesses, and circumstances of the
case the charges in the criminal
proceedings are substantially identical
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 87 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
to those in the departmental proceedings,
such that an acquittal in the criminal
case would render the findings in the
disciplinary proceedings vulnerable ?
High Court of H.P.
(iii). …not relevant….
47. While an acquittal in a criminal case
doesnot automatically entitle the accused
to have an order of setting aside of
his dismissal from public service
following disciplinary proceedings, it is
well-established that when the charges,
evidence, witnesses, and circumstances
in both the departmental inquiry and
the criminal proceedings are identical
or substantially similar, the situation
assumes a different context. In such
cases, upholding the findings in the
disciplinary proceedings would be unjust,
unfair, and oppressive. This is a position
settled by the decision in G. M. Tank
(supra), since reinforced by a decision
of recent origin in Ram Lal v. State of
Rajasthan.
48. To assess the degree of similarity
between the charges, evidence, witnesses,
and circumstances in the disciplinary
and criminal proceedings, it is indeed
crucial to review the materials placed
before the Court where such an issue
arises…
50. The judgment acquitting the appellant
reveals that the prosecution "miserably
failed to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt" as both the
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 88 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
informant and PW-2 refused to identify
the appellant in court. This discussion
High Court of H.P.
confirms that the appellant's acquittal
was based not on mere technicalities.
In Ram Lal (supra), this Court held
that terms like "benefit of doubt" or
"honorably acquitted" should not be
treated as formalities. The Court's duty
is to focus on the substance of the
judgment, rather than the terminology
used.
55. Law is trite that while exercising
its powers under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution, the High Court
does not exercise powers that are
available to an appellate court. It is
the decision -making process that
falls for scrutiny. Be that as it may,
the High Courts can rectify errors
of law or procedural irregularities
if any, that lead to a manifest
miscarriage of justice or breach of
the principles of natural justice .
Law is also well-established that the
standards for establishing a guilt in
disciplinary proceedings differ from those
applicable to criminal proceedings.
However, it is equally true that
departmental authorities are obligated
to provide a fair opportunity to the
parties involved, and what constitutes
a fair opportunity must be determined
based on the facts and circumstances
of each case, as has been laid down
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 89 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
in State of Mysore v. Shivabasappa
Shivappa Makarpur AIR 1963 SC 375..”
High Court of H.P.
10(iii). For assessing the degree of similarity ,
in relation to the contested Charge No III (i) (ii)
& (iv) of the Charge sheet [Memorandum of Charges]
dated 15-06-2007, for having booked regd parcel
no 4669 on 23-03-2007 and not dispatching it but
in tampering and fabricating the parcel containing
answer sheets {of 10+2 examination, including sheets
pertaining to his son and the daughter of another
employee, Radha Devi} which were alleged to have been
recovered from his residence on 24-03-2007.
Material on record indicates that based
on alleged incident, petitioner was detained by police
on 23-03-2007 and FIR No 56/2007 dated 24-03-2007,
alleging tampering and fabrication of registered parcel
no 4669 booked on 23-03-2007 in Sub Post Office
Sari-molag, containing the answer sheets, which were
alleged to have been recovered from the residence of
the petitioner.
Pertinently, the material on record goes
on to establish that the charges, evidence, witnesses
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 90 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
and the circumstances in the departmental inquiry
and the criminal proceedings were “identical or
High Court of H.P.
substantially similar” , regarding Charge No III (i)
(ii) & (iv) of Charge-sheet dated 15-6-2007 had its
origin with reference to alleged accusation contained
in FIR No 56/2007. The case records establish that
after due trial, the allegations regarding “place of
alleged incidence” and “mode and manner of alleged
occurrence was disproved. Even the allegation of
tampering and fabrication of parcel was not proved.
Further the allegation that the alleged two answer-
sheets were recovered from house of the petitioner
was not proved. A perusal of the judgement of
acquittal establishes that the witness examined by
prosecution, including the complainant and others
in criminal case was totally negated and disproved
the allegation regarding the Charge No III, as set-
up in departmental proceedings. After holding a full-
fledged trial, Learned Trial Court has recorded a
definite conclusion that the charge was not proved
leading to the acquittal of petitioner, which certainly
is an honourable acquittal. The findings recorded
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 91 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
by the Inquiry Officer in Inquiry Report, regarding
High Court of H.P.
alleged incident, and the allegation of tampering and
fabrication and the allegation of recovery of answer
sheet from residence of petitioner was based on
mere ipse-dixit of inquiry officer and conjectures and
surmises and such findings regarding Charge No III
being perverse cannot sustain. The decision-making
process giving a “go-bye to due process of law”
by not conducting the departmental proceedings as
mandated under the CCS (CCA) Rules and by non-
adherence to established legal compliances has gravely
prejudiced the petitioner by depriving him of the
valuable right to defend himself in the departmental
proceedings. Once the decision-making process is
erroneous in law and the same has resulted in
miscarriage of justice, and a cquittal of the petitioner
after full consideration of prosecution evidence has
negated the findings recorded in the departmental
proceedings qua Charge No III then, such findings
cannot be permitted to stand against the petitioner.
Permitting the findings recorded in the departmental
proceedings in relation to Charge No III (i) (ii) & (iv)
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 92 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
to stand, despite honourable acquittal shall amount
High Court of H.P.
to reinforcing the sting which already stood negated
by Trial Court and permitting it to be reinforced
shall be highly unjust, unfair and oppressive, as per
the principles outlined by the Honble Supreme Court
in Ramachandra , Capt M Paul Antony, G M Tank,
Ram Lal and in the case of Maharana Pratap Singh
(supra). Consequently, entire p roceedings i.e. inquiry,
inquiry report and the adversial orders including
dismissal orders in relation to Charge No III (i) (ii) &
(iv), does not stand the test of judicial scrutiny and
Impugned Order passed by Learned Tribunal cannot
sustain on facts and law and is set-aside.
11. Fourth contention of Learned Counsel is
that the findings recorded in Para 13 of the Impugned
Order that punishment imposed on the petitioner after
due inquiry was not disproportionate, is e rroneous in
law.
11(i). For appreciating this, it is necessary to have
recap of circumstances, warranting judicial interference
in matters concerning the imposition of punishment
by disciplinary authorities.
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 93 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
11(i-a). The general principle is that the question
High Court of H.P.
of quantum of punishment in disciplinary proceedings
is primarily for the disciplinary authority to decide
and jurisdiction of Writ Court or Tribunal is limited
and is confined to well-known principles known as
“Wednesbury principle”.
11(ii). The exceptional circumstances warranting
interference in the matters relating to departmental
proceedings and punishment have been outlined by
Honble Supreme Court in the following cases:-
11(ii-a). While outlining the scope of interference in
disciplinary proceedings, including the quantum of
punishment where disciplinary authorities have held
the proceeding against the delinquent in a manner
inconsistent with the principles of natural justice or
in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode
of inquiry or where the authorities have disabled
themselves from reaching a fair decision or by allowing
them to be influenced by extraneous considerations
or where the conclusions reached is on the face
of it is wholly capricious or that no reasonable
person could have arrived at such decision, stands
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 94 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
outlined by of the Honble Supreme
Three Judges
High Court of H.P.
Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh vs
Chitra Venkata Rao (1975) 2 SCC 557, in following
terms:-
21. ….The High Court may interfere where
the departmental authorities have held
the proceedings against the delinquent
in a manner inconsistent with the rules
of natural justice or in violation of the
statutory rules prescribing the mode
of enquiry or where the authorities
have disabled themselves from reaching
a fair decision by some considerations
extraneous to the evidence and the
merits of the case or by allowing
themselves to be influenced by irrelevant
considerations or where the conclusion
on the very face of it is so wholly
arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable
person could ever have arrived at that
conclusion…”
11(ii-b). While dealing with scope of interference
in quantum of punishment in case of trivial charge
revealing negligence which did not result in loss
to the department, the Honble Supreme Court in
Bhagat Ram vs State of Himachal Pradesh, (1983)
2 SCC 442 held as under:
15. It is equally true that the penalty
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 95 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
imposed must be commensurate with
the gravity of the misconduct , and
High Court of H.P.
that any penalty disproportionate to the
gravity of the misconduct would be
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.”
11(ii-c). While dealing with scope of interference
in quantum of punishment or sentence the Honble
Supreme Court has held in Ranjit Thakur vs Union
of India (1987) 4 SCC 611, as under:
25. Judicial review generally speaking, is
not directed against a decision, but is
directed against the "decision making
process". The question of the choice
and quantum of punishment is within
the jurisdiction and discretion of the
Court-Martial. But the sentence has to
suit the offence and the offender. It
should not be vindictive or unduly
harsh. It should not be so disproportionate
to the offence as to shock the
conscience and amount in itself to
conclusive evidence of bias. The doctrine
of proportionality, as part of the
concept of judicial review, would ensure
that even on an aspect which is,
otherwise, within the exclusive province
of the Court Martial, if the decision
of the Court even as to sentence is
an outrageous defiance of logic, then
the sentence would not be immune from
correction. Irrationality and perversity
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 96 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
are recognized grounds of judicial
review . In Council of Civil Service
High Court of H.P.
Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service,
Lord Diplock said:
"... Judicial Review has I think developed
to a stage today when without reiterating
any analysis of the steps by which
the development has come about, one
can conveniently classify under three
heads the grounds upon which
administrative action is subject to
control by judicial review. The first
ground l would call 'illegality '. the second
irrationality ' and the third 'procedural
impropriety' . That is not to say that
further development on a case by case
basis may not in course of time add
further grounds. I have in mind
particularly the possible adoption in
the future of the principle of
'proportionality' which is recognized
in the administrative law of several of
our fellow members of the European
Economic Community ...”
11(ii-d). While dealing with scope of interference
in quantum of punishment, the Courts can mould
the relief, if the punishment imposed shocks the
conscience of the Court , by remitting back the matter
or in rare cases, to impose appropriate punishment
supported with reasons, as per the principles outlined
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 97 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
by the Honble Supreme Court in B C Chaturvedi
vs Union Of India (1995) 6 SCC 749 , in following
High Court of H.P.
terms:-
“18. A review of the above legal position
would establish that the disciplinary
authority, and on appeal the appellate
authority, being fact-finding authorities
have exclusive power to consider the
evidence with a view to maintain discipline.
They are invested with the discretion to
impose appropriate punishment keeping
in view the magnitude or gravity of
the misconduct . The High Court /
Tribunal, while exercising the power of
judicial review, cannot normally substitute
its own conclusion on penalty and impose
some other penalty. If the punishment
imposed by the disciplinary authority
or the appellate authority shocks the
conscience of the High Court/Tribunal,
it would appropriately mould the
relief , either directing the disciplinary
/appellate authority to reconsider the
penalty imposed, or to shorten the
litigation, it may itself, in exceptional
and rare cases, impose appropriate
punishment with cogent reasons in
support thereof .”
11(ii-e). While dealing with scope of interference
in quantum of punishment, the Courts can show
indulgence in view of Wednesbury’s principle , if
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 98 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
an order was contrary to law, or relevant factors were
High Court of H.P.
not considered, or irrelevant factors were considered,
or the decision was one which no reasonable person
could have taken or on Doctrine of proportionality ,
if exercise of discretion infringes rights excessively,
as mandated by the Honble Supreme Court in Om
Kumar vs Union of India, (2001) 2 SCC 386, in
the following terms:
25. We shall, therefore, have to examine
the cases of Sri Om Kumar and of Sri
Virendra Nath from the stand point of basic
principles applicable under A dministrative
Law, namely, Wednesbury principles and
the doctrine of proportionality . It has,
therefore, become necessary to make
reference to these principles and trace
certain recent developments in the law.
I (a) Wednesbury principle :
26. Lord Greene said in 1948 in the
Wednesbury case that when a statute
gave discretion to an administrator to
take a decision, the scope of judicial
review would remain limited. He said
that interference was not permissible
unless one or other of the Om Kumar
and Ors vs Union Of India following
conditions were satisfied-namely the order
was contrary to law, or relevant factors
were not considered, or irrelevant
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 99 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
factors were considered; or the decision
was one which no reasonable person
High Court of H.P.
could have taken . These principles were
consistently followed in UK and in India
to judge the validity of administrative
action. It is equally well known that
in 1983, Lord Diplock in Council for
Civil Services Union v. Minister of
Civil Services, (1983) 1 AC 768 (called the
GCHQ case) summarized the principles
of judicial review of administrative
action as based upon one or other of
the following-viz illegality, procedural
irregularity and irrationality. He, however,
opined that 'proportionality' was a future
possibility.'
(b) Proportionality:
27. The principle originated in Prussia in the
nineteenth Century and has since been
adopted in Germany, France and other
European countries. The European Court
of Justice at Luxembourg and the
European Court of Human Rights at
Strasbourg have applied the principle
while judging the validity of administrative
action. But even long before that, the
Indian Supreme Court had applied the
principle of 'proportionality' to legislative
action since 1950, as stated in detail
below.
28. By 'proportionality', we mean the question
whether, while regulating exercise of
fundamental rights, the appropriate or
least restrictive choice of measures has
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 100 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
been made by the legislature or the
administrator so as to achieve the object
High Court of H.P.
of the legislation or the purpose of
the administrative order, as the case
may be. Under the principle, the Court
will see that the legislature and the
administrative authority 'maintain a
proper balance between the adverse
effects which the legislation or the
administrative order may have on the
rights, liberties or interests of persons
keeping in mind the purpose which they
were intended to serve'. The legislature
and the administrative authority are,
however, given an area of discretion
or a range of choices but as to whether
the choice made infringes the rights
excessively or not is for the Court.
That is what is meant by proportionality”
11(ii-f). Regarding the scope of interference in
punishment imposed in disciplinary proceedings the
Honble Supreme Court has outlined in the case of
Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank vs Rajender Singh,
(2013) 12 SCC 372, as under:
“19. The principles discussed above can
be summed up and summarized as
follows:
19.1. When charge(s) of misconduct is proved
in an enquiry the quantum of punishment
to be imposed in a particular case is
essentially the domain of the
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 101 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
departmental authorities.
19.2. The courts cannot assume the function
High Court of H.P.
of disciplinary/departmental authorities
and to decide the quantum of punishment
and nature of penalty to be awarded
as this function is exclusively within
the jurisdiction of the competent
authority.
19.3.Limited judicial review is available to
interfere with the punishment imposed
by the disciplinary authority, only in
cases where such penalty is found
to be shocking to the conscience of
the court.
19.4. Even in such a case when the
punishment is set side as shockingly
disproportionate to the nature of charges
framed against the delinquent employee,
the appropriate course of action is to
remit the matter back to the disciplinary
authority or the appellate authority with
direction to pass appropriate order of
penalty. The court by itself cannot
mandate as to what should be the
penalty in such a case.
19.5. The only exception to the principle stated
in para 19.4 above, would be in those
cases where the co-delinquent is awarded
lesser punishment by the disciplinary
authority even when the charges of
misconduct were identical or the co-
delinquent was foisted with more serious
charges. This would be on the doctrine
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 102 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
of equality when it is found that the
employee concerned and the co-
High Court of H.P.
delinquent are equally placed. However,
there has to be a complete parity between
the two, not only in respect of nature
of charge but subsequent conduct as
well after the service of charge-sheet in
the two cases. If the co-delinquent accepts
the charges, indicating remorse with
unqualified apology, lesser punishment
to him would be justifiable.”
11(ii-g). Principles outlining the scope of judicial
review in matters relating to imposition of punishment
in disciplinary proceedings have been spelt out in
cases of Ajay Kumar Upadhyay vs Director General
SSB and Ors (2022) 20 SCC 608 and in Union of
India vs Subrata Nath (2024) 20 SCC 402 , {Para 24]
in case, the punishment shocks conscience of Court
or is found to be flawed for reasons as enumerated
in the case of P Gunasekran, in following terms:
24. To sum up the legal position, being fact
finding authorities, both the Disciplinary
Authority and the Appellate Authority
are vested with the exclusive power to
examine the evidence forming part of
the inquiry report. On finding the evidence
to be adequate and reliable during the
departmental inquiry, the Disciplinary
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 103 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
Authority has the discretion to impose
appropriate punishment on the delinquent
High Court of H.P.
employee keeping in mind the gravity
of the misconduct. However, in exercise
of powers of judicial review, the High
Court or for that matter, the Tribunal
cannot ordinarily reappreciate the evidence
to arrive at its own conclusion in
respect of the penalty imposed unless
and until the punishment imposed is
so disproportionate to the offence that
it would shock the conscience of
the High Court/Tribunal or is found
to be flawed for other reasons, as
enumerated in P. Gunasekaran (supra).
If the punishment imposed on the
delinquent employee is such that shocks
the conscience of the High Court or
the Tribunal, then the Disciplinary /
Appellate Authority may be called upon
to re-consider the penalty imposed. Only
in exceptional circumstances, which need
to be mentioned, should the High Court
/Tribunal decide to impose appropriate
punishment by itself, on offering
cogent reasons therefor.
11(ii-h). While dealing with scope of judicial scrutiny
in matters relating to imposition of punishment, the
Courts can interfere, in case, the circumstances are
such that no reasonable person would impose such
punishment which was questioned or disciplinary
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 104 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
authority had used sledgehammer for cracking a
High Court of H.P.
nut and the punishment is not commensurate with
the gravity of misconduct, the Honble Supreme Court
in Punjab & Sind Bank vs Raj Kumar, 2026 SCC
Online SC 519, has held:-
9. What follows from the precedents noted
above is that courts should exercise
restraint while interdicting orders of
punishment. Normally, no court in
exercise of its power of judicial review
should interfere with an order of
punishment imposed on a delinquent
as a measure of disciplinary action by
the competent authority and substitute
its own judgment for that of the former.
This is premised on the reason that
the disciplinary authority is the best
judge of the situation, and the
requirements of maintaining discipline
within the work force. While it is not
the law that the courts should invariably
stay at a distance when legality and/
or propriety of a particular punishment
is questioned, judicial scrutiny of the
disciplinary action by way of punishment
could arise only if the circumstances
are such that no reasonable person
would impose the punishment which
is questioned and/or such punishment
has the effect of shocking the conscience
of the court. To put in simpler words,
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 105 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
interference could be warranted if it
appeals to the court that the disciplinary
High Court of H.P.
authority has ‘used a sledgehammer
for cracking a nut’. A punishment, which
is strikingly or shockingly disproportionate
and is not commensurate with the
gravity of misconduct, proved to
have been committed in course of
inquiry or otherwise, would border
on arbitrariness and offend Article 14
of the Constitution.
ADMISSION OF CHARGES I & II CANNOT IPSO-
FACTO LEAD TO HARSHEST PENALTY :
11(iii). First Charge as per Charge sheet was that
petitioner booked one Registered Parcel No 4630 on
5.3.2007 and shown its dispatch to Pathankot Railway
Mail Service on 5.3.2007 but this parcel was actually
dispatched on 6.3.2007 which was alleged to be
non-compliance of Rule 53 and Rule 136 of Postal
Manual. The second charge was that the petitioner
was alleged to have booked another Registered Parcel
No 4664 on 21.03.2007 and he failed to dispatch
it to Pathankot Railway Mail Service or Palampur
Headquarters on the same day and this parcel
was dispatched on 22.03.2007, which was alleged to
be violative of Rule 171(3) and Rule 186 of the Postal
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 106 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
Manual.
High Court of H.P.
Stand of Respondents is that the petitioner
admitted aforesaid Charges I and II before Inquiry
Officer on 18.08.2007 owing moral responsibility.
11(iii-a). Now, question arising for consideration
is as to whether for mere admission of Charges I
& II, the Respondents could ipso-facto impose the
harshest of penalty on petitioner ?
11(iii-b). For appreciating the issue, the provision of
Rule 53 and Rule 136 of Postal Manual Volume V
and Rule 171(3) and Rule 186 of Postal Manual Vol-V
reads as under:
Rule 53. Due mails and unusual mails:
The term due mail comprises all the
bags, articles and documents which
must be dispatched every day or at
regular intervals. The terms unusual
mail comprises parcel bags, packet
bags, special bags, camp bags,
telegraph bags and any other bags
not included in the term “due mail”.
Rule 136. Supply of Due Mail and Sorting
List:
The due mail and sorting list consists
of (i) the due mail-list of receipts and
dispatch (ii) the letter mail sorting
list and (iii) the registered and parcel
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 107 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
mail sorting list, in three separate
parts each of which can ordinarily be
High Court of H.P.
printed or prepared in manuscript as
the case may require, on a single page
of the prescribed form-the list for the
Out and In trips of sections being
kept separate. These lists are prepared
and supplied as follows:
(a) For Post Offices and Mail Offices
in communication with offices in
more than one RMS Division-By the
Head of the Circle. The lists for Post
Offices being prepared in manuscript
and supplied direct to each office and
those for sections and Mail Offices
being printed and supplied to the
Superintendents concerned or their
own use and for distribution to
Inspectors, Record Assistants, officials
in charge of sets and individual Sorting
Assistants. One copy of the list for
a Post Office is also supplied to the
Superintendent of Post Offices concerned
and one copy of the list for a section
or mail office-to each of the other
Heads of Circles have under him Post
Offices, Mail Offices and section to
communication with that section or
office.
(b) For Post Offices in direct
communication with a Mail Office
in one RMS Division only and all
Mail Offices in a RMS Division in
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 108 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
communication with the Mail Offices
of the particular RMS Division itself-
High Court of H.P.
By the Superintendent RMS of the
Division.
(c) All sub-offices and branch offices
as are either transit offices except
those in direct communication with
RMS and for Transit Sections under
the control of Superintendent of Post
Offices-By the Superintendent of Post
Offices in manuscript.
171. Treatment of Articles presented for
Registration :
(1)-(2) …not relevant..
(3). The upper copy of the receipt
should then be detached from the
journal and handed over to the person
who presented the article for
registration, except in the case of an
article registered by the Postmaster on
service in which case the receipt should
be left on record in the journal. All
articles registered each day should
be entered on receipt side of the
abstract concerned.
186. Examination of registered and parcel
abstracts and of articles in deposit:
(1). Registered articles of the letter
mail and parcel mail which cannot
be delivered at once, or are
unclaimed or to be redirected or have
been refused or received missent,
should be entered in the registered
or parcel abstract [Form R.P-33 or
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 109 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
R.P.-8 ], as the case may be, against
the appropriate item “In deposit”. So
High Court of H.P.
long as registered articles remain in
deposit, their numbers must be
detailed each day in the abstract. When
such articles are disposed of they
should be shown on the issue side
of the abstract opposite to the proper
entries.
Perusal of Rule 53 indicates that all
bags, articles and documents, being “due mail”
were required to be despatched at every day or at
regular intervals but in case a parcel was entered
in “Form R.P.-8” then, the provision of Rule 186
of the Postal Manual indicates that such article
cannot be delivered at once. In instant case, a perusal
of Annexures R-7 dated 05-03-2007 and 21-03-2007
[at page 413-415] with Reply-Affidavit filed before
Tribunal and similar documents Annexure R-3 [at
page 494 to 497] with Reply Affidavit filed to instant
writ petition, undoubtedly go on to establish that
registered parcels, qua Charge No I & II, relating to
the aforesaid two dates were booked under R.P. 8
of Postal Manual, leading to permissible inference
that these parcels were not strictly liable to be
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 110 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
dispatched further on the same day, in view of
High Court of H.P.
exigencies.
11(iv). At this stage, it is necessary to take note
of Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, providing for
imposing following penalties on an employee:
11. Penalties
The following penalties may, for good
and sufficient reasons and as
hereinafter provided, be imposed on
a Government servant, namely:-
Minor Penalties:
(i) to (iv) …not relevant…
Major Penalties:
(v) to (vi) …not relevant...
(viii). compulsory retirement
(viii). removal from service which shall
not be a disqualification for future
employment under the Government;
(ix) dismissal from service which shall
ordinarily be a disqualification for
future employment under the
Government.
Provided that, in every case in
which the charge of possession of assets
disproportionate to known-sources of
income or the charge of acceptance
from any person of any gratification,
other than legal remuneration, as a
motive or reward for doing or forbearing
to do any official act is established,
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 111 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
the penalty mentioned in clause
(viii) or clause (ix) shall be imposed:
High Court of H.P.
Provided further that in any exceptional
case and for special reasons recorded
in writing, any other penalty may be
imposed.s
Rule 11, mandates that the imposition of
penalty on delinquent employee cannot be exercised
disproportionately and arbitrarily, but the exercise
of discretion has to satisfy the twin requirements
of “good and sufficient reasons” . Imposition of a
penalty can be construed to have fructified, only if,
“good reasons” existed for initiating the departmental
proceedings, for which an inquiry was conducted
in consonance with statutory rules-norms. Based
on evidence adduced and the proof of charges, the
Authorities were then to consider as to whether
“sufficient reasons” existed for imposing any of the
penalties on an employee, after considering relevant
parameters i.e. accusation against delinquent; the
role required to be performed by delinquent employee;
inaction or violation of rules/norms by delinquent;
extent of violation in reference to applicable rules-
norms; and magnitude and gravity of established
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 112 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
misconduct; period of service rendered and the
and
High Court of H.P.
service which was yet to be performed but for
the penalty imposed. The rule making authority
had inserted a provisio to Rule 11, that the harshest
penalty of dismissal was liable to be imposed in
cases, where gravest of misconduct was established
and established misconduct was of such magnitude
involving or was relatable to or was akin to the
possession of assets disproportionate of known sources
of income or acceptance from any person of any
gratification, other than legal remuneration for doing
or forbearing to do any official act is established.
The insertion of provisio below Rule 11 (ix) acts
as a guiding factor for disciplinary authority, that
the harshest penalty of dismissal from service cannot
be imposed by exercising discretion in an improper,
unfettered and casual manner and that too by
ignoring “relevant factors” as to whether the penalty
imposed was commensurate with the misconduct or
was disproportionate, in facts of each case.
CONCLUSION:
12. Based on the above discussion, this Court
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 113 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
has no hesitation to hold that the Respondent No
High Court of H.P.
4-Disciplinary Authority has exercised discretion in
imposing harshest of penalty of dismissal in
an arbitrary and whimsical manner and that
too by “ignoring relevant considerations”, i.e. the
accusation against the delinquent; the role required
to be performed by delinquent employee; inaction
or violation of rules/norms by delinquent ; the extent
of violation in reference to applicable rules-norms;
and the magnitude-gravity of established misconduct;
and to take into account other relevant factors
i.e. the period of service rendered and service yet
to be rendered and future career progression besides
other extenuating circumstances, which would have
accrued, but for the penalty. Discretion vested in
disciplinary authority cannot be exercised so as to
use a sledgehammer to crack a nut and the
penalty imposed should not be disproportionate or
unduly harsh, which, no reasonable person would
have imposed against a delinquent employee.
In respect of Charge No I & II, mere
admission of charges does not ipso-facto confer a
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 114 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
discretion on Respondent No 4-Disciplinary Authority
High Court of H.P.
for imposing harshest penalty of dismissal, ignoring
“relevant considerations” that mere delayed despatch
of registered parcel by one day due to negligence,
was not of such a magnitude for which severest
of punishment could have been imposed. Further,
even rules-norms in Postal Manual, as reproduced
above, foresees that in case due to any exigency
or act or omission, a registered parcel could not
be dispatched on the same day or regular intervals
then, such registered parcels were to be entered in
Form RP-8. Since the petitioner had entered both
registered parcel in Form RP-8 {one parcel dated
05-03-2007 and one parcel dated 21-03-2007}, and
the rules-norms relied upon in the Postal Manual
recognises “permissible delayed delivery” then, the
mere admission by the petitioner, accepting negligence
in delayed dispatch of parcel by one day cannot
lead to imposition of harshest penalty of dismissal.
In respect of Charge No III (i) (ii) &
(iv), this Court has already quashed the findings
recorded by the Inquiry Officer, which were accepted
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 115 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
by the Respondent No-4 Disciplinary authority, [in
High Court of H.P.
terms of the discussion made in Para 10 (iii) supra]
in view of the fact that “ due process of law was
given a go-bye” . The Inquiry Officer had entertained
documents, which were merely produced but were
never proved by witnesses i.e. either by examining
the author of such documents or competent person
having knowledge of contents of such documents.
Legal compliances in Rule 14 (14) of CCS (CCA)
Rules was violated . The action of the Inquiry Officer
-Authorities in relying upon “inadmissible evidence”
has deprived the petitioner of his foundational right
to cross-examine the author or competent person.
Even non-production and supply of “Un-Enlisted
Documents” despite having pointed out “relevancy
of documents”, which was duly approved by the
Inquiry Officer on 17.09.2007 {Annexure A-15}, was
violative of Rule 14 (ii) & (12). Communication dated
28-09-2007, Annexure R-9, sent by the Disciplinary
Authority-Respondent No 4 in treating the required
documents as “not relevant” was without authority
of law, as the Rules solely empowered the Inquiry
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 116 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
Officer to determine relevancy of documents sought
High Court of H.P.
to be requisitioned and produced during regular
inquiry. Inquiry Officer could not refuse to ensure
production of documents on directions-orders given
by the Disciplinary Authority-Respondent No 4 impedes
purity and fairness in departmental proceedings.
Once there was nothing on record to establish that
production of documents was “against public interest
or security of state”, then, non-compliance of Rule
14 (13), was writ large. Even, rejection of request
and the non-production of “Un-enlisted Documents ”
on directions-orders of higher authority-disciplinary
authority, establish that the Inquiry Officer was
bent upon to act as an agent of the Authorities
so as arrive at findings against the petitioner and
non-adherence to statutory rules and legal compliances
has gravely prejudiced the petitioner, by denying
him a reasonable opportunity to defend himself in
the departmental proceedings. Even, on the principle
of preponderance of probabilities, the findings recorded
by Inquiry Officer were perverse. The decision-making
process has resulted in miscarriage of justice,
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 117 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
and once after due appreciation of the prosecution
evidence, the petitioner was acquitted and the
High Court of H.P.
findings recorded in departmental proceedings were
negated, qua the Charge No III (i) (ii) & (iv),
then, the sting which stood negated by Trial Court
and had lost its effect cannot be permitted to be
reinforced, which shall be highly unjust, unfair and
oppressive as per the principles outlined by the
Honble Supreme Court, as aforesaid. Even, the twin
core requirements of imposition of a penalty for
“good and sufficient reasons”, is not satisfied in
instant case, due to the flawed inquiry conducted
in violation of the statutory rules and in ignoring
“relevant considerations” as discussed above. Allowing
penalty of dismissal to remain, shall amount to
giving leverage and premium to the authorities for
their omissions and inactions, which shall be highly
arbitrary. In facts of instant case, the imposition of
harshest penalty of dismissal has shocked conscience
of this Court, warranting interference. Consequently
the p roceedings in relation to Charge No III (i) (ii) &
(iv) and all adversial orders including the dismissal
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 118 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
orders, does not stand the test of judicial scrutiny
High Court of H.P.
and same are quashed and set-aside.
13. Learned DSG has assailed the Impugned
Order dated 30.09.2014 [Annexure P-5}, passed by
Learned Tribunal on the ground that dismissal orders
passed on 14.02.2008 could not be made effective
from the date of passing the fresh rejection orders
on 17.11.2011.
Since this Court has quashed the entire
proceedings, including adversial orders then, this
Court does not feel it appropriate to analyze this aspect.
14. Flowing from the above narration of facts,
the applicable statutory rules, the mandate of law
and the material on record, t he Impugned Order
dated 30.09.2014, [Annexure P-5], passed by Learned
Tribunal suffers from inherent illegality and infirmity
and accordingly, the Impugned Order is interdicted
and quashed and set-aside.
MODIFYING PENALTY AND MOULDING OF RELIEF:
15. In instant case, the petitioner joined service
with the Respondents-Employer as Postal Assistant
on 17.01.1983 and was promoted as Sub-Postmaster.
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 119 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
Upon initiation disciplinary proceedings, the harshest
High Court of H.P.
of penalty of dismissal from service was imposed
on 14-02-2008 [Annexure A-1] and other subsequent
adversial orders were issued against the petitioner.
The dismissal order and other subsequent adversial
orders have been quashed by this Court. By now,
petitioner has reached the age of superannuation
and due to this, he cannot be reinstated in service.
Though in the normal course, this Court would
have remitted the matter back to the Authorities for
imposing any other penalty, which was commensurate
with the alleged misconduct [qua admitted Charge
no I & II, for having delaying the dispatch of two
registered parcel on two occasions, when Charge
No III (i) (ii) & (iv) stands quashed in view of
honorable acquittal and non-compliance of rules and
imposition of disproportionate penalty of dismissal
was arbitrary and unwarranted, due to which the
petitioner has been gravely prejudiced. Imposing a
penalty, which is not commensurate with the alleged
misconduct and is disproportionate is a relevant
aspect, to show indulgence, in view of prolonged
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 120 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
24 years of service rendered and the fact that he
High Court of H.P.
was entitled for further career progression and was
on honourable acquittal qua Charge No III (i) (ii)
& (iv) and the admitted Charges I & II point towards
negligence, which was a trivial, but without having
caused any financial loss to the authorities or any
other person. Dismissal was all the more injurious
to the petitioner and his family. While dealing with
a similar fact-situation, the Honble Supreme Court
in the case of Sahab Singh (D) through LR’s vs
Director General, RPF, Rail Bhawan & Ors, 2025
SCC Online SC 2924, has modified the penalty from
dismissal to compulsory retirement.
Taking into account the totality of facts
and circumstances and in view of non-adherence
to legal compliances and in view of the admission
of alleged misconduct {relating to Charge No I & II
as discussed above} and the fact that petitioner
had rendered 24 years of service; therefore, in facts
of instant case, this Court modifies penalty
and moulds the relief, by directing the Authorities
to treat the petitioner to have “Compulsorily
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 121 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
Retired from service from 14.02.2008”, instead
High Court of H.P.
of the penalty of dismissal from service imposed on
14.02.2008 to meet the ends of justice ; and entitling
petitioner for all service benefits, including Gratuity,
Pension etc. from 14.02.2008, inaccordance with law.
16. No other point was raised/argued.
DIRECTIONS:
17. In view of above discussion and for the
reasons recorded hereinabove, the writ petition filed
by the Petitioner-Employee is allowed and the writ
petition filed by Respondent-Employer is dismissed ,
in following terms:-
(i). Civil Writ Petition, i.e. CWP No 1990
of 2015, titled as Union of India &
others versus Trilochan Dass Dogra,
is dismissed ;
(ii). Civil Writ Petition, i.e. CWP 3128
of 2015, titled as Trilochan Dass
Dogra versus Union of India & others
is allowed;
(iii). Impugned Order dated 30.09.2014,
[Annexure P-5], passed by Learned
Central Administrative Tribunal in
OA 1323/HP/2012, is quashed and
set-aside;
(iv). Authorities-Respondents shall treat
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS
- 122 -
2026:HHC:21859-DB REPORTABLE
petitioner to have Compulsory Retired
from service from 14.02.2008, instead
High Court of H.P.
of dismissal;
(v). Upon moulding of relief, Authorities
Respondents shall grant all service
benefits including Gratuity, Pension
etc. to the petitioner w.e.f. 14.02.2008
with all consequential benefits;
(vi) As a sequel to the above directions,
entire proceedings qua Charge No-III
and the penalty of dismissal dated
14.02.2008, and the orders rejecting
appeal and revision, including fresh
rejection orders dated 17.11.2011 are
quashed and set-aside;
(vii). Benefits flowing in terms of this
judgment shall be released to the
petitioner within four weeks from the
receipt of certified/downloaded copy
of this judgement;
(viii). Parties to bear respective costs.
In aforesaid terms, both petitions and all
pending applications, if any, shall accordingly stand
disposed of.
(G.S. Sandhawalia) (Ranjan Sharma)
Chief Justice Judge
June 04, 2026.
(TM)
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2026 17:22:47 :::CIS