CWP No. : 4816 of 2020
Reserved on : 28.04.2025
Decided on : 06.05.2025
Guman Singh
....Petitioner.
State of H.P. and Ors.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioner : Mr. Surinder Prakash Sharma,
Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Hemant Kumar Verma,
Deputy Advocate General,
i) That writ of certiorari may kindly be
issued, quashing and setting aside
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:12661-DB )
the impugned order dated
31.07.2020 (Annexure P-8).
ii) That writ of mandamus may kindly
be issued, directing the respondents
reinstate the petitioner in service as
Sweeper-cum Class IV employee with
all consequential benefits.
2. The case as set-up by the petitioner is
that he was appointed as Part Time Sweeper-
cum-Class-IV, on contract basis on the
honorarium of Rs.300/- per month by respondent
No. 3, vide office order dated 28.07.1999.
Petitioner joined his duties on 29.07.1999 in the
office of 4th respondent. He was deputed at
Primary Health Centre, Gatadhar, Tehsil Sangrah,
District Sirmour, H.P. The appointment of
petitioner was challenged before the erstwhile
H.P. Administrative Tribunal, on the ground that
the qualification certificate of the petitioner was
not genuine. An inquiry was ordered by
respondent No. 2, which led to registration of an
FIR in the matter. The petitioner was prosecuted
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:12661-DB )
and finally acquitted vide judgment dated
13.09.2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Shillai, District Sirmour, H.P.
3. The petitioner made a representation
to the 2nd respondent with the request to
reinstate him in service with all consequential
benefits on the grounds firstly that he stood
acquitted in the criminal case and secondly his
termination was based on a suspicion only. The
representation of the petitioner having remained
undecided, he preferred CWP No. 1211 of 2020
before this Court, which came to be disposed of
vide judgment dated 15.06.2020 with direction
to the 2nd respondent to decide the
representation of the petitioner by passing a
detailed and reasoned order. Petitioner was also
granted liberty to file fresh representation, if so
advised.
4. In compliance to directions issued by
this Court, petitioner submitted a representation
dated 25.06.2020 to the 2nd respondent. The
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:12661-DB )
representation was not decided within the time
specified by this Court. Petitioner submitted a
reminder dated 12.08.2020.
5. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent passed
the impugned order dated 31.07.2020, Annexure
P-8, whereby the claim of the petitioner was
rejected.
6. Petitioner has raised challenge on the
ground that the 2nd respondent while passing
the order dated 31.07.2020 has overstepped his
jurisdiction by wrong interpretation of judgment
dated 13.09.2019, passed by learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Shillai. It has also been
contended that the finding of 2nd respondent with
respect to non-submission of the 5th Class
certificate by petitioner is wrong in as much as
no inquiry has ever been held by the competent
authority and the petitioner has not been afforded
any chance to defend himself. As per petitioner,
respondents being model employer were obligated
to act in a fair and transparent manner, but the
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:12661-DB )
conditions of the petitioner have been exploited
to his disadvantage. Neither any inquiry was held
nor any formal order of termination was ever
issued. It has also been submitted that there was
no requirement of passing 5th standard as a pre-
condition for appointment as Part Time
Helper/Class IV.
7. Respondents have filed the reply. It has
been submitted that the petitioner had initially
been engaged as Part Time Sweeper-cum- Class
IV by respondent No. 4 in the year 1999 for a
period of three months on a fixed honorarium to
be paid by the Indian 'Red Cross Society',
Sirmour. The services of the petitioner were
engaged afresh as Peon-cum-Water Carrier under
'Rogi Kalyan Samiti Scheme' for 89 days, vide
memo dated 25.10.2002 by 3rd respondent purely
on contract basis on fixed remuneration.
Petitioner had accordingly submitted his joining
report on 03.12.2002. The said contractual
engagement of petitioner came to be continued by
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:12661-DB )
renewal of the contract from time to time till
24.08.2004.
8. As per respondents, the State
Government had framed the recruitment scheme
for the appointment of Part Time Helper/Class-
IV in the year 2006, vide notification dated
14.07.2006. In pursuance to notification of above
said scheme, interviews were held for engaging
Class-IV/Sweeper on part time basis in the
Department of Family Welfare, Government of
H.P. Petitioner also appeared in the interview
after applying for the post under the scheme. He
was selected and was offered the post of Class-
IV on part time basis on the fixed terms and
conditions vide order dated 22.05.2007. In
compliance to aforesaid order, petitioner joined
as Part Time Class IV on 28.05.2007.
9. The appointment of petitioner under
the scheme was challenged by one Sh. Bahadur
Singh by filing O.A. No. 1228 of 2007 before the
erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal. The said
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:12661-DB )
O.A. was disposed of vide order dated 29.05.2007
with directions to treat the petition as a
representation of petitioner and respondent No.
2 was directed to decide the same in a time
bound manner. In compliance, the applicant in
O.A. No. 1228 of 2007, namely, Sh. Bahadur
Singh as well as the petitioner herein were
afforded opportunity to explain their position.
Petitioner had assured to submit the certificate
of his educational qualification through Block
Medical Officer. Accordingly, the references were
repeatedly sent to BMO, Sangrah, to seek
submission of certificate of educational
qualification of petitioner. The representation of
the petitioner was finally decided by a speaking
order dated 31.12.2007. The BMO, Sangrah, was
directed to send the qualification certificate to
the vigilance department for inquiry and after
report it was found that the certificate was
fake, the services of the petitioner were ordered
to be dispensed with forthwith and criminal
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:12661-DB )
proceedings were also directed to be initiated
against him.
10. Petitioner had failed to submit his
qualification certificate to BMO, Sangrah, who
referred the matter to Deputy Director of Primary
Education, Sirmour at Nahan, vide letter dated
06.11.2007, to verify the authenticity of the copy
of qualification certificate produced by the
petitioner at the time of interview. The Deputy
Director of Primary Education, Sirmour at
Nahan, vide communication dated 01.02.2008
had informed that there was no entry bearing
the name of Guman Singh S/o Sh. Kanshi Ram
in the school record of Primary School, Panog
and instead the entry was of Guman Singh S/o
Sh. Amar Singh in school records. Since, from
the above intimation, it was proved that the
petitioner had managed to get the job by playing
fraud, his services were terminated by the BMO,
Sangrah, w.e.f. 28.05.2007, vide order dated
08.02.2008. Simultaneously, FIR No. 57/2008,
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:12661-DB )
dated 01.09.2008 was also registered against
petitioner and another for offences under
Sections 420, 467,468, 471 and 120-B of the
Indian Penal Code, in Police Station Shillai. After
completion of investigation, petitioner was
prosecuted, in which the petitioner was finally
acquitted. It is contended by the respondents
that the acquittal of petitioner was not
honourable and further his certificate of 5th
standard as produced by him at the time of
interview had not been held as genuine by the
Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Shillai, therefore, petitioner was not entitled for
reinstatement in service or the consequential
benefits as claimed by him.
11. I have heard learned counsel for the
parties and have also gone through the record of
the case carefully.
12. Petitioner has not been able to
controvert the fact that his fresh appointment
was made in pursuance to a scheme floated by
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:12661-DB )
the State vide notification dated 14.07.2006. A
copy of his appointment order dated 22.05.2007
has been placed on record as Annexure R-3. As
one of the grounds of challenge raised by
petitioner it has been submitted that as per the
recruitment scheme for appointment of Part
Time Helper-cum-Class IV, the requirement of
5th standard certificate was not at all necessary.
Thus, the petitioner cannot claim benefit of
continuity of service as Part Time Sweeper-cum-
Class-IV w.e.f. 1999 as claimed by him. The
appointment of petitioner is held to have been
made in pursuance to order dated 22.05.2007,
Annexure R-3. It was this appointment of the
petitioner which was challenged by Bahadur
Singh by way of O.A. No. 1228 of 2007, filed
before the erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal
on 28.05.2007. The O.A. was disposed of on
29.05.2007 with direction to the 2nd respondent
to treat the petition of Bahadur Singh as
representation and to decide the same in a time
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:12661-DB )
bound manner. Till the decision on such
representation, status quo as on 29.05.2007 was
ordered to be maintained.
13. In compliance to order dated
29.05.2007, passed in O.A. No. 1228 of 2007,
order dated 31.12.2007, was passed by Director
Health Services i.e. respondent No. 2. The
perusal of the said order reveals that no decision
was taken on the merits of the case, rather the
order was passed in following terms:-
" In view of above, it is decided that the
educational certificates of Sh. Guman Singh
part Time helper PHC-Gatadhar be sent by
the block Medical Officer Sangrah and CMO
District Sirmour at Nahan to the Vigilance
Department/ Enforcement Department at
Nahan for enquiry and after report, if it is
found that the certificate of qualification are
fake the services of respondent No. 5 be
dispensed with forthwith and criminal
proceeding got started against respondent
No. 5 in consultation with the District
Attorney, District Sirmour at Nahan and the
Vigilance/Enforcement Department. A case
for conducting interview again for selection
to the post of part time helper also referred
for permission to the Director Health
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:12661-DB )
Services at the same time . Medical-II
Branch is hereby directed to start a process
for taking action against the erring BMO,
Sangrah and CMO Nahan for not taking
any action in the matter till date and for
being negligent and having dealt with the
subject matter in a negligent and cursory
manners, as non-issuance of
proceeding/decision in the present OA i.e.
the representation may amount to
disobedience to the orders of the Hon'ble
Tribunal."
14. Noticeably, vide aforesaid order dated
03.12.2007, the 2nd respondent had directed the
certificate submitted by petitioner to be handed
over to vigilance department for inquiry and to
dispense with the services of the petitioner in
case after inquiry it was found that the certificate
was fake besides to initiate the criminal action
against the petitioner.
15. The services of the petitioner were
terminated by respondent No. 5, vide office order
dated 08.02.2008, retrospectively, w.e.f.
28.05.2007. In the said office order, there was no
reference to the report of an inquiry, if any,
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:12661-DB )
conducted by the vigilance department. The order
was passed on the basis of the report submitted
by the Deputy Director of Primary Education,
District Sirmour, whereby it was informed that in
the school record of Government Primary School,
Panog, the name of petitioner was not found. The
fact was presumed to be proved by respondent
No. 5 and as a result thereof office order dated
08.02.2008 was issued.
16. It is not in dispute that the petitioner
was prosecuted for offences under Sections 420,
465, 467 and 468, 471 read with Section 120-B
of the Indian Penal Code, in the criminal case
No. 3/2 of 2019/2010 by learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Shillai, District Sirmour,
H.P. and was acquitted vide judgment dated
13.09.2019. The charge against the petitioner
was that he in criminal conspiracy with his
co-accused had forged 5th standard certificate
allegedly issued by Head Master of Primary
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:12661-DB )
School, Panog, to claim qualification upto 5th
standard.
17. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Shillai, vide judgment dated 13.09.2019 has held
that the prosecution had failed to prove the
charge against petitioner beyond reasonable
doubts, which resulted in acquittal of the
petitioner and other co-accused.
18. According to the respondents, the
acquittal of the petitioner cannot be said to be
honourable.
19. The question as to what should be
termed as honorable acquittal has been
considered in a number of judgments rendered
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The latest
exposition on the subject has been made by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and
others Vs. Methu Meda (2022) 1 SCC 1. The
relevant extract of aforesaid exposition can be
gainfully noticed as under: -
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:12661-DB )
"10. While addressing the question, as
argued the meaning of expression
'acquittal' is required to be looked into. The
expressions 'honorable acquittal',
'acquitted of blame' and 'fully acquitted'
are unknown to the Code of Criminal
Procedure or the Penal Code, 1860. It has
been developed by judicial
pronouncements. In State of Assam &
Another vs. Raghava Rajagopalachari,
(1972) 7 SLR 44, the effect of the word
'honorably acquitted' has been considered
in the context of the Assam Fundament
Rules (FR) 54 (a) for entitlement of full pay
and allowance if the employee is not
dismissed. The Court has referred to the
judgment of Robert Stuart Wauchope vs.
Emperor, (1934) 61 ILR Cal. 168, in the
context of expression 'honourably
acquitted', Lord Williams, J. observed as
thus:
"The expression "honourably
acquitted" is one which is unknown to
courts of justice. Apparently, it is a form of
order used in courts martial and other extra
judicial tribunals. We said in our judgment
that we accepted the explanation given by
the appellant, believed it to be true and
considered that it ought to have been
accepted by the Government authorities and
by the Magistrate. Further we decided that
the appellant had not misappropriated the
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:12661-DB )
monies referred to in the charge. It is thus
clear that the effect of our judgment was
that the appellant was acquitted as fully
and completely as it was possible for him to
be acquitted. Presumably, this is equivalent
to what government authorities term
"honourably acquitted".
11. In R.P. Kapur vs. Union of India
AIR 1964 SC 787, it is observed and
held by Wanchoo, J., as thus: (AIR p.
792, para 9)
"9.... Even in case of acquittal, proceedings
may follow where the acquittal is other than
honourable."
12. In view of the above, if the acquittal is
directed by the court on consideration of
facts and material evidence on record with
the finding of false implication or the finding
that the guilt had not been proved,
accepting the explanation of accused as
just, it be treated as honourable acquittal. In
other words, if prosecution could not prove
the guilt for other reasons and not
'honourably' acquitted by the Court, it be
treated other than 'honourable', and
proceedings may follow.
13. The expression 'honourable acquittal'
has been considered in State vs. S.
Samuthiram (2013) 1 SCC 598 after
considering the judgments in Reserve Bank
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:12661-DB )
of India vs. Bhopal Singh Panchal (1994)1
SCC 541 and R.P. Kapur (supra), Raghava
Rajagopalachari (supra); this Court
observed that the standard of proof
required for holding a person guilty by a
criminal court and enquiry conducted by
way of disciplinary proceeding is entirely
different. In a criminal case, the onus of
establishing guilt of the accused is on the
prosecution, until proved beyond
reasonable doubt. In case, the prosecution
failed to take steps to examine crucial
witnesses or the witnesses turned hostile,
such acquittal would fall within the
purview of giving benefit of doubt and the
accused cannot be treated as honourably
acquitted by the criminal court. While, in a
case of departmental proceedings, the guilt
may be proved on the basis of
preponderance of probabilities, it is thus
observed that acquittal giving benefit of
doubt would not automatically lead to
reinstatement of candidate unless the rules
provide so.
14. Recently, this Court in State (UT of
Chandigarh) vs. Pradeep Kumar, (2018) 1
SCC 797, relying upon the judgment of S.
Samuthiram (supra) said that acquittal in a
criminal case is not conclusive of the
suitability of the candidates on the post
concerned. It is observed, acquittal or
discharge of a person cannot always be
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:12661-DB )
inferred that he was falsely involved or he
had no criminal antecedent. The said issue
has further been considered in State vs.
Mehar Singh (2013) 7 SCC 685, holding
non-examination of key witnesses leading
to acquittal is not honourable acquittal, in
fact, it is by giving benefit of doubt. The
Court said that nature of acquittal is
necessary for core consideration. If
acquittal is not honourable, the candidates
are not suitable for government service and
are to be avoided. The relevant factors and
the nature of offence, extent of his
involvement, propensity of such person to
indulge in similar activities in future, are the
relevant aspects for consideration by the
Screening Committee, which is competent to
decide all these issues."
20. Noticeably, what has been held by the
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shillai,
is that the prosecution had failed to prove its
case beyond reasonable doubts. It had also been
noticed by that court that a number of
prosecution witnesses had not supported the
case of prosecution, thus, one of the reasons for
acquittal was witnesses of prosecution had
turned hostile. As a result, keeping in view the
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:12661-DB )
above exposition, the acquittal of petitioner
cannot be said to be honourable.
21. Even though the acquittal of the
petitioner might not be honourable nonetheless
he stands acquitted meaning thereby that the
criminal charges were not found proved against
him. That being so, the acquittal of petitioner
cannot be justifiably held as a ground to penalise
the petitioner by termination of his service. For
imposition of such penalty there has to be some
proceeding or inquiry under the applicable
service rules more particularly when the fake
qualification certificate produced by petitioner to
procure job has been assigned as reason for his
termination. The reason definitely is stigmatic.
22. Noticeably, the respondents have never
held any inquiry against petitioner. As noticed
above, the BMO Sangrah had terminated the
services of the petitioner merely on the basis of a
report submitted by Deputy Director of Primary
Education, Sirmour. Petitioner, at no stage, was
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:12661-DB )
afforded opportunity to defend himself before
issuance of the order of termination.
23. The appointment letter of petitioner
Annexure R-3 reveal the terms and conditions of
his appointment mentioned therein as under:
That the appointment was purely on
contract basis for one year renewable on
year to year basis subject to performance;
The services were liable to be terminated in
case of misconduct or dereliction of duty;
12 casual leaves allowed in a year;
Unpaid leave could be sanctioned on
medical grounds;
Unauthorised absence beyond 15 days
would result in automatic termination of
service;
Services were temporary in nature and
were liable for termination by issuance of
one month notice;
The working hours were from 9AM to 11
AM and from 2 PM to 4 PM daily.
24. Even though the appointment of the
petitioner was contractual, as per settled
proposition of law, he could not be denied the
benefit of principles of natural justice especially
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:12661-DB )
when he was sought to be terminated from
service on the allegations which were stigmatic.
25. The representation of the petitioner
after his acquittal has again been decided only on
the basis that the acquittal was not honourable.
Even if the acquittal was not honourable it could
not be considered as proof of the allegation
levelled against the petitioner. The facts of the
case are clearly evident that the petitioner has
been condemned unheard.
26. The appointment of petitioner was on
contract basis under recruitment scheme floated
by the State Government in the year 2006. No
reference has been made to any particular
provision of the said scheme while terminating
the service of petitioner. The conduct of
respondents, as has been evident from the facts
of the case, does not reveal as to under which set
of service rules action has been taken against the
petitioner.
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:12661-DB )
27. The 2006 scheme of recruitment
adopted by respondents has not seen the light of
the day. No such scheme or document evidencing
terms thereof has been placed on record of this
case. The 2nd respondent has not even made a
mention as to the requirement of passing of 5th
standard as a qualification for Part Time Class-
IV worker. In the reply submitted by respondents
to the instant petition also there is no such
mention.
28. In light of above discussion, the writ
petition is allowed. The impugned order dated
31.07.2020, Annexure P-8, is quashed and set
aside. It is held that the petitioner definitely has
a right of consideration vis-à-vis his plea for
revocation of his termination and reengagement.
The respondents are under obligation to consider
the suitability of the petitioner for his
continuance as Class-IV, in view of the acquittal
of the petitioner of criminal charges vide
judgment dated 13.09.2019, passed by learned
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:12661-DB )
Juridical Magistrate First Class, Shillai, District
Sirmour, H.P.
29. As a result, respondent No.2 is
directed to hold an independent inquiry against
the petitioner and to conclude the same within a
period of three months from the date of
production of a copy of this order and thereafter
to take decision afresh on the representation of
the petitioner.
30. The petition is, accordingly, disposed
of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending
miscellaneous application(s) if any.
(Satyen Vaidya)
6th May, 2025 Judge
(sushma)
