Himachal Pradesh High Court
Pawan Kumar vs Hrtc & Ors on 20 May, 2025
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.6734 of 2025
Date of decision: 20.05.2025
Pawan Kumar. ...Petitioner.
Versus
HRTC & Ors. ...Respondents.
Coram:
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioner : Mr. Ashok K. Verma, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashishat,
Advocate.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Petitioner is aggrieved against office order dated
12.06.2024 issued by the Disciplinary Authority imposing
penalty of censure and recovery of Rs.25,256/- upon him
and also the order passed by the Appellate Authority on
17.08.2024, whereby the recovery was restricted to 60% of
Rs.25,256/- by slightly modifying the order of the
Disciplinary Authority.
2. Facts of the case.
2(i). Petitioner is serving as Driver with the
respondent-Corporation. On 09.04.2024, respondent No.3
issued a memorandum to the petitioner under Rule 16 of
Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal)
1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
Rules, 1965, (in short 'CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965') with the
allegations that:- The petitioner was driving on bus No.HP-
28-2293 enroute from Jammu to Dharampur on 28.09.2023;
During inspection of the bus at the workshop, its front glass
was found broken; This had happened due to the negligence
on the part of petitioner in performing his duties; Petitioner's
negligence had caused a loss of Rs.25,256/- to the
Corporation.
2(ii). Pursuant to the aforesaid memorandum, the
petitioner furnished his response on 20.04.2024. Petitioner
did not admit the allegations levelled against him. He termed
the allegations as devoid of basic foundational facts and
baseless. It was his specific stand that the bus in question
had been operated by many other drivers, even after
28.09.2023. No defect related to the breakage of front glass
had been pointed out by the subsequent drivers in the
workshop. This fact did not find mention in the logbook. The
petitioner requested the Disciplinary Authority to confirm his
defense by checking the logbook and the Defect Register.
2(iii). The respondents issued office order on
12.06.2024 (Annexure P-3), in terms of which petitioner's
response was found unsatisfactory and penalty of Censure
and recovery of Rs.25,256/- was imposed upon him as
financial loss caused to the Corporation. Petitioner preferred
appeal on 15.06.2024 before the Appellate Authority against
the aforesaid penalty order. Petitioner reiterated in his appeal
that he was not at all responsible for the breakage of the
front glass of the bus. That even after 28.09.2023, the bus
had been driven by many drivers of the Corporation in
succession, who did not report breakage in the front glass.
The petitioner also prayed for conducting a departmental
inquiry into the matter.
2(iv). The Appellate Authority on 17.08.2024 (Annexure
P-5) confirmed the penalty of Censure but modified the
recovery order inasmuch as instead of Rs.25,256/-, recovery
of 60% of the loss, i.e. Rs.15,154/- was ordered to be
imposed upon the petitioner.
2(v). Second appeal preferred by the petitioner on
07.09.2024 before the Managing Director-respondent No.1
was disposed of vide Annexure P-6, as not maintainable.
In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner has
instituted this writ petition assailing the orders passed by
Disciplinary as also the Appellate Authorities.
3. Following order was passed in the matter on
25.04.2025: -
"Notice. Ms. Shrutika Chauhan, Advocate,
appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the
respondents.
2. From the documents placed on record, it
appears that the respondents have imposed minor
penalty upon the petitioner in exercise of power under
Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
3. Let learned counsel for the respondents obtain
instructions in the first instance as to whether the
procedure prescribed under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA)
Rules, 1965 was followed while imposing penalty
upon the petitioner, particularly in light of the
pleadings in the writ petition and the stand taken by
the petitioner before the competent authority in
response to the notice issued to him.
List the matter during the course of next week
for the purpose of instructions."
Pursuant to the aforesaid order, learned counsel
for the respondents placed on record office instructions
dated 07.05.2025 and 30.04.2025 from the Regional
Manager, HRTC, Dharmapur and submitted that aforesaid
instructions be taken as stand of the respondents in this writ
petition as no separate reply is intended to be filed by them.
Matter has been heard accordingly.
4. According to the respondents, on 28.09.2023 the
petitioner had reached the workshop with bus No.HP-28A-
2293. His bus was inspected by the Head Mechanic. The
front glass of the bus was found broken. This was on
account of negligence in petitioner's driving. The Head
Mechanic had submitted his report in the office on
12.03.2024 and the work of front glass replacement was got
carried out by the respondents after incurring cost of
Rs.25,256/-. Accordingly, Memorandum of Charges was
issued to the petitioner on 09.04.2024 under Rule 16 of the
CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. He furnished his reply on
23.04.2024. The reply was considered by the Disciplinary
Authority, i.e. Regional Manager, HRTC, Dharmpur. It was
found unsatisfactory. Petitioner was heard in person on
29.04.2024, whereafter the penalty of Censure and recovery
of amount of loss sustained by the respondent-Corporation
amounting to Rs.25,256/- was imposed upon him under
office order dated 12.06.2024. Petitioner's appeal against the
aforesaid order was dismissed in accordance with law by the
Appellate Authority, i.e. Divisional Manager, HRTC, though
modifying the recovery amount by 60% of the loss suffered
by HRTC.
4(i). Under Rule 11 of the CCS(CC&A) Rules, 1965,
following minor penalties can be imposed:-
"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) censure;
(ii) withholding of his promotion;
(iii) recovery from his pay of the whole or part of any
pecuniary loss caused by him to the Government by
negligence or breach of orders;
(iii a) reduction to lower stage in the time-scale of pay by
one stage for a period not exceeding three years,
without cumulative effect and not adversely affecting
his pension.
(iv) withholding of increments of pay;"
Rule 16 of the CCS(CC&A) Rules prescribes
following procedure for imposing minor penalties (relevant
extract only):-
"16. PROCEDURE FOR IMPOSING MINOR PENALTIES:
(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (5) of rule 15, no
order imposing on a Government servant any of the
penalties specified in clause (i) to (iv) of rule 11 shall be
made except after-
(a) informing the Government servant in writing of
the proposal to take action against him and of the
imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour on
which it is proposed to be taken, and giving him
reasonable opportunity of making such
representation as he may wish to make against the
proposal;
(b) holding an inquiry in the manner laid down in
sub-rules (3) to (23) of rule 14, in every case in
which the disciplinary authority is of the opinion
that such inquiry is necessary;
(c) taking the representation, if any, submitted by
the Government servant under clause (a) and the
record of inquiry, if any, held under clause (b) into
consideration;
(d) consulting the Commission where such
consultation is necessary. The Disciplinary
Authority shall forward or cause to be forwarded a
copy of the advice of the Commission to the
Government servant, who shall be required to
submit, if he so desires, his written representation
or submission on the advice of the Commission, to
the Disciplinary Authority within fifteen days; and
(e) recording a finding on each imputation or
misconduct or misbehaviour.
(1-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (b) of
sub-rule (1), if in a case it is proposed after considering the
representation, if any, made by the Government servant
under clause (a) of that sub-rule, to withhold increments of
pay and such withholding of increments is likely to affect
adversely the amount of pension payable to the Government
servant or to withhold increments of pay for a period
exceeding three years or to withhold increments of pay with
cumulative effect for any period, an inquiry shall be held in
the manner laid down in sub-rules (3) to (23) of Rule 14,
before making any order imposing on the Government
servant any such penalty.
(2) The record of the proceedings in such cases shall
include-
(i) a copy of the intimation to the Government servant of the
proposal to take action against him;
(ii) a copy of the statement of imputations of misconduct or
misbehaviour delivered to him;
(iii) his representation, if any;
(iv) the evidence produced during the inquiry;
(v) the advice of the Commission, if any;
(vi) representation, if any, of the Government servant on the
advice of the Commission;
(vii) the findings on each imputation of misconduct or
misbehaviour; and
(viii) the orders on the case together with the reasons
therefor.
................................."
Here it will be appropriate to refer to G.I., Dept. of
Per. & Trg., O.M. No. 11012/18/85-Estt. (A), dated the 28th
October, 1985, which inter alia states that the disciplinary
authority should apply its mind to all facts and
circumstances and the reasons urged in the representation
for holding a detailed inquiry and form an opinion whether
an inquiry is necessary or not, as under:-
"(i).............
(2) ................................Rule 16 (1-A) of the CCS (CCA)
Rules, 1965, provides for the holding of an inquiry even
when a minor penalty is to be imposed in the circumstances
indicated therein. In other cases, where a minor penalty is
to be imposed, Rule 16 (1) ibid leaves it to the discretion of
disciplinary authority to decide whether an inquiry should
be held or not. The implication of this rule is that on receipt
of representation of Government servant concerned on the
imputations of misconduct or misbehavior communicated to
him, the disciplinary authority should apply its mind to all
facts and circumstances and the reasons urged in the
representation for holding a detailed inquiry and form an
opinion whether an inquiry is necessary or not. In case
where a delinquent Government servant has asked for
inspection of certain documents and cross examination of
the prosecution witnesses, the disciplinary authority should
naturally apply its mind more closely to the request and
should not reject the request solely on the ground that in
inquiry is not mandatory. If the records indicate that,
notwithstanding the points urged by the Government
servant, the disciplinary authority could, after due
consideration, come to the conclusion that an inquiry is not
necessary, it should say so in writing indicating its reasons,
instead of rejecting the request for holding inquiry
summarily without any indication that it has applied its
mind to the request, as such an action could be construed
as denial of natural justice."
Respondents had issued the chargesheet to the
petitioner under Rule 16 CCS(CC&A) Rules on 09.04.2025
for imposing minor penalty. The petitioner had denied the
charges levelled against him and had requested the
respondents to conduct an inquiry into the matter.
Petitioner's request for an inquiry assumes significance
considering his defence that he had drove the bus in
question on 28.09.2023 and thereafter, several other drivers
drove it without any complaint. Even according to the
respondents, the Head Mechanic had submitted his report
on 12.03.2024 pertaining to the alleged negligence on part of
petitioner on 28.09.2023. It is not the case of the
respondents that the Disciplinary Authority on considering
the response of the petitioner to the memo had formed an
opinion as to whether an inquiry in the matter was
necessary or not. Learned counsel for the respondents has
fairly submitted that no order either way had been passed by
the Disciplinary Authority under Rule 16. Further the
impugned order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is
absolutely non-speaking. It does not reveal any reason, does
not give out any justification for imposing minor penalty
upon the petitioner or as to why the petitioner's reply was
found unsatisfactory. Considering that respondents did not
intend to hold any inquiry against the petitioner, some
reasoning for discarding the petitioner's response/defense
should have been laid out in the order before holding him
guilty of the charge levelled against him. Principles of
natural justice have not been complied with by the
respondents.
For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is
allowed. The impugned orders dated 12.06.2024 (Annexure
P-3) & 17.08.2024 (Annexure P-5) are quashed and set
aside. Liberty, however, is reserved to the respondents to
proceed against the petitioner afresh, in accordance with
law.
The writ petition is disposed of in above terms.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
20th May, 2025 Judge
(Pardeep)
