16. The aforesaid representation dated 24.1.2018 was treated
postponing his future increments of pay also.
17. Thereafter vide Office Order dated 9.8.2018, entire period of
18. In aforesaid facts, petitioner has approached the Court.
19. In reply to the petition filed by the respondent-State, re-
20. It is further stand of respondents-State that despite giving
and thus now petitioner is not entitled for any relief as claimed. Alongwith
21. Documents relied upon by the Inquiry Officer/authority
witness examined by the Department/Presenting Officer. As noticed
2025:HHC:18555
summoned by the Inquiry Officer for 16.12.2017. On that day only one
witness Devinder Thakur was examined. Thereafter on request of
requested to appear before Inquiry Officer on 18.12.2017 at Dharamshala.
22. On the basis of previous Inquiry Report submitted in 2013 by
S.M. Katiah, the then Deputy Director, Horticulture, it was considered that
there was circumstantial evidence of newspaper cuttings.
23. It would be relevant to reproduce the entire statements of
Answer: At that time I was President of H.P. Bagwani Sewa Sangh, and
one member of the Sangh Mr.S.K. Katoch who was Deputy Director
Horticulture, Nahan and others had brought in the notice of Association
that some false and baseless news were being published in the
newspapers. Resultantly it was reported to the Government.
2025:HHC:18555
Question No. 3. Who was publishing these news items?
Answer: These were being published by in name of President H.P.
Karmachari Sangh.
Question No. 4. To whom this complaint was submitted by you?
Answer: Submitted in writing to the then Chief Minister of H.P.
Question No. 5. Whether you were informed about the final decision
taken on the complaint?
Answer: No.
Subhash Dhiman Additional Director Horticulture (Retired).
Question No. 1. Whether you conducted inquiry in the year 2013 on the
complaint made by Devinder Thakur, the then Horticulture Development
Officer?
Answer: Yes.
Question No. 2. Under whose order inquiry was conducted?
Answer: This inquiry was conducted in pursuance to written order of
Director Horticulture Department of H.P.
Question No. 3. Against whom this inquiry was?
Answer: This inquiry was done on the complaint of Devinder Thakur,
the than Horticulture Development Officer against Vinod Kumar, the
then Senior Assistant.
Question No. 4. Whether Vinod Kumar Senior Assistant had
participated and cooperated in the inquiry?
Answer: No. Not at all.
Question No. 5. What was outcome of inquiry?
Answer: Everything has been detailed in the Inquiry Report submitted
by me."
24. In his statement, Devinder Thakur has not proved any of the
documents referred or relied upon by the Presenting Officer/Department/
Authority to prove the Article of Charges. There is no date of making
complaint by Devinder Thakur, no mention of name against whom
2025:HHC:18555
complaint was submitted and nothing about final outcome of such inquiry
or complaint.
25. Similarly, Subhash Dhiman has also not disclosed about the
result of Inquiry Report by stating that it was contained in report submitted
by him.
26. Whether aforesaid was a preliminary inquiry or Departmental
inquiry, is not depicted in the statement of above referred two witnesses.
How and in what manner earlier Inquiry, which has not seen light of the
day, in present Inquiry would be relevant to prove the Article of Charges,
is also beyond comprehension. Statements of these witnesses are
lacking in material particulars, especially with respect to documents being
relied upon by the Department/Authority/Inquiry Officer. Inquiry Officer has
also referred previous Inquiry Report submitted by Mr.Subhash Dhiman
and S.M. Katiah, as circumstantial evidence of newspaper cuttings, but
such Inquiry Report was never placed on record by the Presenting Officer
or by the aforesaid two witnesses examined by the Presenting Officer in
support of Article of Charges.
27. It is claim of the petitioner that Inquiry was conducted in a
hasty manner, as evident from the communications placed on record with
the reply of the respondents/Department, which indicates that despite
asking time/adjournment by the petitioner, on account of his ailment as
2025:HHC:18555
well for attending the marriage function, Inquiry was completed in his
absence and there is no evidence on record of serving a notice of next
date(s) upon the petitioner, particularly the date on which evidence of
witnesses was recorded at Shimla and Dharamshala, because petitioner
was proceeded against ex parte on 13.12.2017 and next date was fixed
on 16.12.2017, though it has been claimed that ex parte order was
communicated to the petitioner, but there is nothing on record that in what
manner ex parte order was communicated to the petitioner alongwith next
date 16.12.2017. It is noteworthy that Headquarter of petitioner was fixed
at Mandi. However, on 16.12.2017, proceedings were undertaken at
Shimla and thereafter next date was fixed on 18.12.2017 at Dharamshala
for recording evidence of Department, but no material has been placed on
record to depict that how and in what manner next date was
communicated to the petitioner.
28. Even if it is considered that petitioner did not associate,
cooperate and join the Inquiry, then also Articles of Charges framed
against petitioner were and are required to be proved by Department
through Presenting Officer, by leading cogent and reliable evidence, at
least to substantiate and prove the documents, including news items
being relied upon by the authority for framing Article of Charges.
2025:HHC:18555
29. In present case, neither any Press Reporter nor News Editor
or any other witness claiming that news items in the newspaper were
published at the behest and at the instance of petitioner, has been
examined.
30. Other documents relied upon to hold the petitioner guilty for
misconduct have also not been proved. As evident from the statement of
two witnesses recorded during the Inquiry, their deposition is nowhere
helpful to substantiate the documents relied upon by the Inquiry Officer,
much less to prove the Article of Charges framed against the petitioner.
31. Though petitioner was proceeded ex parte during the Inquiry
proceedings, however, before that he had submitted his representation
disputing the veracity and correctness of Article of Charges framed
against him. Even after receiving Inquiry Report, he had denied the
Article of Charges framed against him, therefore, it is not a case where
petitioner did not dispute and deny the charges leveled against him, but it
is a case where there is a complete expressed denial of allegations
leveled in Article of Charges framed against petitioner. Therefore, it was
incumbent upon the Authority, Presenting Officer and Inquiry Officer to
place on record sufficient evidence to prove the documents on the basis of
which Article of Charges were framed in order to substantiate the
allegations contained in Article of Charges.
2025:HHC:18555
32. Ex parte Inquiry does not mean that Inquiry Officer is free to
return findings in favour of Department but against the employee without
any evidence on record.
33. In present case, Presenting Officer, concerned Authority and
Inquiry Officer have failed to perform their duty and adhere to the basic
principle of Natural Justice as well as service jurisprudence. Therefore, in
this case interference by exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is warranted.
34. True it is that by exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, the Court has not to re-assess the evidence or
re-evaluate the findings from the Departmental Inquiry, but definitely the
Court can interfere in the findings if they are based on no evidence or are
perverse.
35. In present case, there is reference of circumstantial evidence
of Inquiry Report submitted by Subhash Dhiman and S.M. Katiah, but no
such report has been ever proved by any witness on record. Statements
of two witnesses, referred supra, are also not disclosing any incriminating
circumstance or document against the petitioner and, therefore, findings
returned by the Inquiry Officer are not only based on no evidence, but also
perverse. Departmental Authority as well as Appellate Authority have
2025:HHC:18555
failed to consider this aspect, but had accepted the Inquiry Report in a
stereo type manner, without looking into record.
36. Therefore, findings returned in the Inquiry are not
sustainable and are quashed and set aside.
37. In sequel to quashing of findings returned by the Inquiry
Officer, holding the petitioner guilty of misconduct and consequential
orders passed in furtherance thereto, i.e. Office Order dated 30.12.2017,
10.7.2018 and 9.8.2018 and Office Order dated 23.9.2017, putting the
petitioner under suspension, are also not sustainable and accordingly the
same are also quashed and set aside.
38. Consequences of quashing and setting aside impugned
Inquiry Report and orders shall follow and benefits thereof shall be
extended to the petitioner on or before 30th September, 2025. However, it
is made clear that petitioner is not held to be entitled for any interest on
arrears, if any, payable to the petitioner.
Petition is allowed and disposed of in aforesaid terms.
(Vivek Singh Thakur),
Judge.
(Ranjan Sharma),
Judge.
18th June, 2025
(Keshav)
