Himachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On: 29.07.2024 vs The State Of H.P. And Others on 29 July, 2024
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
2024:HHC:6196-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
.
CWP No. 1681 of 2020
Decided on: 29.07.2024
Dhani Ram ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of H.P. and others ... Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
___________________________________________________________________
For the petitioner : Mr. Anand Sharma, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Karan Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy AG.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for
the following reliefs:-
"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the present
petition may kindly be allowed, after summoning the record
of the case and granting an opportunity of being heard to the
parties, an appropriate writ in the nature of writ of certiorari
or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and
setting aside the impugned order dated 18.06.2014, which
on the face of it is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to rule 10 of
service jurisprudence and directing the respondents-
department to release all consequential benefits, i.e. gratuity,
pensionary, pay and allowance for the intervening period of
service w.e.f. 12.12.2003 to 31.12.2010 to the petitioner and
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2024:HHC:6196-DB
.
allow the pension from 1.1.2011 as per revised pay by
treating this retirement w.e.f. 21.12.2010, i.e. the actual date
on which he would have superannuated; such other or
further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper may kindly be passed in the interest of justice."
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present
petition are as under:-
The petitioner was an employee of HPPWD. He joined as
a Work Charged Mate in the year 1990. In the year 2000, a
complaint was filed against the petitioner by one Gorkhu Ram, his
neighbour, alleging that the petitioner has two living wives. This led
to issuance of a show cause notice to the petitioner by the
respondent-Department dated 27.04.2001. To cut the controversy
short, pursuant to this show cause notice, Departmental enquiry
was held against the petitioner and vide Annexure P-3, order dated
12.12.2003, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of
dismissal from service upon the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, he
assailed the same. He initially filed an original application before the
erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, which after
abolition of the Tribunal was transferred to this Court and re-
registered herein as CWP-T No. 57 of 2010. This writ petition was
disposed of by this Court vide Annexure P-4, dated 06.07.2011, in
2024:HHC:6196-DB
.
terms whereof, the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary
Authority was set aside and the Authority was called upon to take a
fresh call in the matter.
3. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority passed order
dated 22.06.2012 (Annexure P-5) and this time, penalty of
compulsory retirement was imposed upon the petitioner. Still feeling
aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was dismissed
by the Appellate Authority vide on 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-1). It is
in this backdrop that the petitioner has approached this Court
praying for the reliefs already enumerated herein above.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the
Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority have erred
in holding that the petitioner had two wives on the face of there
being a judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Civil
Judge (Jr. Divn.), Arki, District Solan, i.e. Civil Suit No. 31/1 of
2005, titled as Smt. Dayawanti vs. Sh. Dhani Ram, in terms
whereof, the Court of competent jurisdiction had passed a decree to
the effect that the plaintiff therein i.e. Dayawanti was not the legally
wedded wife of defendant Dhani Ram and entries in Gram
Panchayat, Plania and entries in the Electoral Role office showing
the plaintiff as wife of the defendant are illegal, wrong and null and
void and inoperative. Accordingly, he has prayed that present
2024:HHC:6196-DB
.
petition be allowed and the petitioner be granted the reliefs as
prayed for after quashing the impugned orders.
5. Learned Deputy Advocate General has defended the
orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate
Authority. On the strength of the reply that has been filed to the writ
petition, learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that there was
plethora of evidence on record from which it could be proved that the
petitioner had two wives and in this view of the matter, the findings
returned by the Authorities called for no interference. He further
submitted that otherwise, also as the orders passed by the
Disciplinary Authority as wells as the Appellate Authority, were
reasoned orders, this Court in exercise of its power of judicial review
was not to sit as an appellate Court and re-appreciate the evidence.
Accordingly, he prayed that the present writ petition being devoid of
merit be dismissed.
6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and
carefully gone through the entire record.
7. The premise on which the order of compulsory
retirement has been passed against the petitioner by the
Disciplinary Authority and said order has been upheld by the
Appellate Authority is that the petitioner had contracted two
marriages. Appellate Authority after taking note of the judgment
2024:HHC:6196-DB
.
passed by a Civil Court in a Civil Suit filed by the Dayawanti went on
to discard the said judgment by relying upon the findings returned
by the Disciplinary Authority by assigning the reason that there was
on record a certificate of Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Plania,
depicting Dayawanti as wife of Shri Dhani Ram and the order passed
by learned Additional CJM, Arki dated 26.12.2002, in Criminal Case
No. 91/2 of 1998 reflected both Ramku Devi and Daya Devi as wives
of Sh. Dhani Ram. Learned Appellate Authority also held that copy
of Parivar register countersigned by the SDM Arki also mentioned
Ramkoo Devi and Dayawanti both as wives of Sh. Dhani Ram and
even the electoral role of 2002 mentions Ramku Devi and Dayawanti
as wives of Dhani Ram. Appellate Authority also observed that a
copy of the Parivar register also reflected Ramkoo and Dayawanti as
wives of Dhani Ram. It further observed that though in the Parivar
Register, the name of Dayawanti was scored out to give effect to the
order of Sub Judge Arki, wherein Dayawanti was not treated to be a
legally wedded wife of Sh. Dhani Ram for want of proof of proper
marriage rituals required to constitute a marriage, but the record
clearly demonstrated Smt. Dayawanti as wife of Sh. Dhani Ram.
8. This Court is of the considered view that the findings
recorded by the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority
that Dayawanti was the wife of Dhani Ram are perverse findings.
2024:HHC:6196-DB
.
Both the Authorities have erred in not appreciating that the
judgment and decree passed by a Civil Court, in terms whereof a
declaration was given by the competent Court of law that Dayawanti
was not the legally wedded wife of Sh. Dhani Ram, eclipsed
everything else and no document could have been looked into by
either of the Authorities in returning a finding, which was contrary
to the adjudication made by the civil Court.
9. In fact, in the teeth of a declaration having been given by
the Civil Court, the issue as to whether Dayawanti was or was not
the wife of Dhani Ram, was no more res integra and this declaration
was binding both on the Disciplinary Authority as well the Appellate
Authority.
10. It is pertinent to mention that the date of judgment and
decree passed by learned Civil Court is 06.11.2008. The order that
was passed by the Disciplinary Authority pursuant to the direction
passed by this Court in CWP-T No. 57 of 2010 was passed on
22.06.2012 when the judgment passed by the learned Civil Court
was already in existence. Now incidentally, the Authorities, i.e. the
Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority, have
brushed aside the declaration given by a Civil Court by relying upon
ancillary record without appreciating that in the decree that was
passed by the Civil Court, it was clearly, unambiguously and
2024:HHC:6196-DB
.
specifically mentioned that the entries in the record of the Gram
Panchayat, Plania and the entries in the Electoral Role Office
reflecting the plaintiff (Dayawanti) as wife of defendant (Dhani Ram)
were illegal, wrong, null and void and inoperative.
11. In fact, this Court has no hesitation in observing that
the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority erred in
not appreciating the very basic principle of law that the judgments
and decrees passed by the Civil Courts are binding and in the
present case, as the issue before the learned Civil Court was
'whether Dayawanati was the legally wedded wife of Dhani Ram',
which was answered by it by holding that Dayawanti was not the
legally wedded wife of Dhani Ram and as the issue in the
Disciplinary proceedings was also 'whether Dhani Ram had
contracted two marriages or not' then in the light of the judgment
and decree passed by the Civil Court, neither of the Authorities
could have imposed penalty upon the present petitioner by holding
that Dayawanti was the second wife of Dhani Ram.
12. As far as the argument raised by learned Deputy
Advocate General that this Court in the course of exercising the
power of judicial review is not to sit as an appellate Authority by re-
appreciating the evidence, all that this Court can observe is that it is
the duty of this Court in exercise of its power of judicial review to
2024:HHC:6196-DB
.
correct any perversity in the findings returned by the quasi judicial
authorities and herein as the perversity is writ large, therefore, this
Court has to intervene so that justice is done.
13. Accordingly, in view of above findings, this petition
succeeds and the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated
22.06.2012 (Annexure P-5) as well as Appellate Authority dated
18.02014 (Annexure P-1 are quashed and set aside and the
respondents are directed to treat the petitioner to be in service till
his superannuation for all intents and purposes and confer upon
him all benefits, including the monetary as from the due date
including retiral benefits. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if
any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
July 29, 2024
(narender)
