Reserved On: 28.04.2025 vs State Of H.P. And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 701 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Reserved On: 28.04.2025 vs State Of H.P. And Others on 9 May, 2025

2025:HHC:13270 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWPOA No. 734 of 2019 Reserved on: 28.04.2025 Decided on: 09.05.2025 __________________________________________________________ Dr. S.D. Sankhayan ...Petitioner

Versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents __________________________________________________________ Coram

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting? Yes

______________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shalini Thakur and Mr. Hitender Verma, Advocates.

For the respondents: Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Addl.

Advocate General, for respondent No.1.

Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 and 3.

Satyen Vaidya, Judge

The instant petition has been filed by the

petitioner for the grant of following substantive reliefs:

(a) That the impugned orders dated 21.01.2003, Annexure A-5, 29.03.2003, Annexure A-7 and order dated 15.10.2003, Annexure A-9, respectively may be ordered to be quashed and set-aside.

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2 2025:HHC:13270

(b) That the enquiry may be declared as void ab initio.

(c) That any delegation of power by the Board of Management to the Vice Chancellor for initiating departmental proceedings against the teacher/ applicant whose appointing authority is Board of Management may be declared illegal.

(d) That the applicant may be ordered to be reinstated from the date of his compulsorily retirement and be ordered to be entitled to all consequential benefits.

2. The orders challenged by way of instant petition

are as under:

(i) The order dated 21.01.2003 issued by the Board of Management whereby the petitioner was ordered to be compulsorily retired from the service of the University with immediate effect.

(ii) The order dated 29.03.2003 passed by the Chancellor of the university dismissing the service appeal of the petitioner.

(iii) The order dated 23.10.2003 passed by the Chancellor of the university dismissing the review petition of the petitioner.

3. The case as set-up by the petitioner is that he

was initially appointed as Assistant Soil Chemist in CSK

H.P. Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Palampur (hereinafter referred 3 2025:HHC:13270

to as the "University"). Later, he was appointed as Head of

Department of Soil Sciences of the University on

15.05.1998. The petitioner was a strict disciplinarian and

for such reason the members of the staff of the University

and the colleagues of the petitioner conspired and

submitted complaints against him. On such complaints, an

inquiry was entrusted to Dr. M.R. Thakur, who vide report

dated 25.06.1999 not only exonerated the petitioner, but

also indicted the complainant. Accordingly, the petitioner

was reinstated as Head of Department of Soil Sciences

w.e.f.01.07.1999.

4. Another inquiry was instituted against the

petitioner and Sh. S.N. Joshi was appointed as Inquiry

Officer on 03.07.1999. The petitioner was again removed

from the post of Head of Department of Soil Sciences. The

petitioner assailed the action of the respondents in

removing him from Headship of the department of Soil

Sciences by filing O.A. No.2240 of 1991 before the erstwhile

State Administrative Tribunal (for short, "Tribunal"). On

23.07.1999, the Tribunal by an interim order directed the

University to maintain the status quo during the pendency 4 2025:HHC:13270

of the O.A. As a consequence, Sh. S.N. Joshi did not

proceed further with the inquiry.

5. On 30.06.2000 Kanwar Hari Singh, IAS retired

was appointed as Inquiry Officer into the charges framed

against the petitioner. Inquiry report was submitted on

30.04.2001. A copy of inquiry report was supplied to the

petitioner on 19.01.2002, that too, after repeated

representations made by the petitioner. The petitioner was

required to file reply to the inquiry report. The petitioner

showed compliance. The reply of the petitioner was placed

before the Board of Management (for short, "BOM") without

the documentary evidence relied upon by the petitioner. On

02.01.2003, the BOM issued a notice to the petitioner

proposing penalty of dismissal from service. The petitioner

submitted a detailed reply/representation. The BOM

imposed the major penalty of compulsory retirement of the

petitioner from service with immediate effect.

6. The petitioner filed appeal to the Chancellor of

the University, which was dismissed on 29.03.2003. The

petitioner further preferred review petition before the 5 2025:HHC:13270

Chancellor of the University, which was also rejected vide

order dated 15.10.2003.

7. In the above narrated factual backdrop, the

petitioner has raised following grounds of challenge:

(a) That the inquiry was void ab initio for lack of

inherent jurisdiction. The appointing

authority of the petitioner was BOM and the

Vice-Chancellor was not competent to order

the holding of inquiry or to appoint the

Inquiry Officer, without prior concurrence of

BOM.

(b) That the charges were not proved against the

petitioner.

(c) That the punishment inflicted upon the

petitioner was disproportionate to the

charges alleged to have been proved against

him.

(d) That the Vice-Chancellor had personal

vendetta as motive against the petitioner,

which resulted in the holding of inquiry

against the petitioner.

6 2025:HHC:13270

(e) That the punishment could not have been

inflicted in view of the interim order dated

23.07.1999 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.

No. 2240 of 1999.

(f) That no proper inquiry was held against the

petitioner.

(g) That the punishment of compulsory

retirement was the major penalty, which

could not have been imposed on the charges

of trivial nature against the petitioner.

8. The University has filed its reply through the

Registrar stating inter alia that the original penalty of

dismissal from service was reduced to compulsory

retirement from service with immediate effect after taking

into consideration the request of the petitioner dated

16.01.2003 for voluntary retirement; the long service record

of the petitioner and his social commitment towards his

family etc.

9. The factum of appointment of Dr. M.R. Thakur as

Inquiry Officer and submission of his report exonerating the

petitioner has not been denied. It has, however, been 7 2025:HHC:13270

submitted that the petitioner was reinstated as Head of

Department as Soil Science on 01.07.1999, but the inquiry

report of Dr. M.R. Thakur was not accepted by the Vice-

Chancellor of the University for the reason that the

complainant was not heard by the fact-finding officer. In

such circumstances, Sh. S.N. Joshi, IAS (Retd.) was

appointed as Inquiry Officer to enquire the matter de-novo

after affording opportunity of being heard to all concerned.

The orders to that effect were issued on 03.07.1999. The

petitioner continued to discharge the duties of Head of

Department of Soil Science. The O.A. No. 2240 of 1999 was

filed by the petitioner against the holding of fresh inquiry

with a further prayer to reinstate the petitioner as Head of

Department from the back date i.e. 03.12.1998. In view of

the status quo order passed by the erstwhile Tribunal, the

Inquiry Officer though concluded the inquiry and submitted

his report on 13.12.1999, but no administrative action was

taken.

10. The University filed Miscellaneous Application

before the Tribunal for vacation of interim order dated 8 2025:HHC:13270

23.07.1999. The Tribunal vide order dated 17.4.2000,

clarified its previous order as under:

"We are afraid that interim order passed on 23.07.1999 has been misread by the petitioner/respondent. We have not ordered that no disciplinary action should be taken against the petitioner, in case he violates any rule and conduct himself in any manner which is not proper for the petitioner/respondent. As such, the grounds taken by the petitioner/respondent for getting the interim stay vacated is not justified and the application is rejected".

11. Thereafter, a regular inquiry was instituted

against the petitioner by the University vide memorandum

dated 25.05.2000. Kanwar Hari Singh, IAS (Retd.) and Ex-

Member of H.P. Administrative Tribunal was appointed as

Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Report was submitted on

30.04.2001, which was placed before the BOM in its 73rd

meeting held on 29.12.2001. The BOM issued direction to

supply a copy of inquiry report to the petitioner and if

desired by the petitioner, to allow him personal hearing by

Vice-Chancellor. The petitioner submitted his response

dated 13.03.2002. The matter was again placed before the 9 2025:HHC:13270

BOM in its 76th meeting held on 28.12.2002 and the BOM

resolved and approved the punishment of dismissal from

service against the petitioner.

12. The petitioner was issued show cause notice vide

memorandum dated 02.01.2003. The petitioner submitted

his response dated 16.01.2003. The petitioner was afforded

personal hearing by the Vice-Chancellor. The BOM in its

77th meeting held on 18.01.2003 decided to compulsorily

retire the petitioner from service with immediate effect.

13. The petitioner had submitted his request for

voluntary retirement, which was also taken into

consideration by the BOM, while imposing the punishment

of compulsorily retirement from service against the

petitioner.

14. The University has further contended that by

virtue of Section 48 of the H.P. University of Agriculture,

Horticulture and Forestry Act, 1986, the BOM was

authorized to delegate to any officer or authority of the

University any of the power conferred on it by the Act or

statutes of the University. The BOM had delegated its power

to the Vice-Chancellor.

10 2025:HHC:13270

15. Out of eight (8) charges, five (5) were stated to be

proved against the petitioner. The infliction of punishment

of compulsorily retirement from service against the

petitioner has also been justified being commensurate to

the charges proved against him. The allegation that the

Vice-Chancellor had some motive against the petitioner has

also been denied. As regards the infliction of punishment

during pendency of O.A. No. 2240 of 1999, it has been

submitted that the order dated 23.07.1999 had been

clarified by the Tribunal and as such, there was no

impediment in initiation or culmination of disciplinary

proceedings against the petitioner.

16. In rejoinder filed by the petitioner, the averments

made in the petition have been reiterated.

17. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and

have also gone through the records of the case carefully.

18. Sh. Rajiv Jiwan, learned Senior Advocate,

representing the petitioner would contend that the

indictment of the petitioner was without any evidence and

the inquiry report was vitiated for such reason. He would

further submit that the disciplinary authority has not acted 11 2025:HHC:13270

in accordance with law and has passed the impugned order

with the motive to show the petitioner the way out from the

University. He has also raised challenge on the ground that

the service rules did not provide for the imposition of major

penalty on the charges which were trivial in nature.

Further, it has been contended that the punishment of

compulsorily retirement was in any case disproportionate to

the charges allegedly proved against the petitioner.

19. On the other hand, Sh. Surinder Saklani,

Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent-University has

defended the action of the University on the grounds that it

was in accordance with the service rules of the University

envisaged by the Statutes of the University. The inquiry was

held in lawful manner by an independent person. The

petitioner was afforded fullest opportunity to defend

himself. The punishment of compulsorily retirement was

commensurate with the charges proved against the

petitioner.

20. The following Articles of Charges were held

proved against the petitioner by the Inquiry Officer:-

Article of Charge No.1:

12 2025:HHC:13270

The Vice Chancellor vide order dated 8.2.2000

directed Dr. S.D. Sankhayan, HOD to submit the

cases of teachers for participation in

International Conference on "Natural Resource

Management" to the Director of Research latest

by 9.2.2000 (11.30 AM). The Vice Chancellor also

directed him to submit the case of leaves/tour

programmes of teachers but Dr. Sankhayan did

not obey the orders of the Vice Chancellor, thus

violating the provisions contained in statute

8.1(1) and (2) and rendered himself liable for

disciplinary action under Statute 8.2 (1), (3) and

(8) of the HP K.V. Statutes.

Article of Charge No. 2:

Dr. S.P. Sharma, Soil Chemist, Department of

Soil Science has complained that a few

documents have been tampered from his

personal files maintained by the Head,

Department of Soil Science. Dr. Sankhayan was

directed thrice to forward the representation of

Dr. S.P. Sharma with his comments in time 13 2025:HHC:13270

bound manner but the said Dr. Sankhayan did

not carry out the said orders of the competent

authority, thus violating the provisions contained

in statute 8.1 (1) and (2) and rendered himself

liable for disciplinary action under Statute 8.2 (1)

and (3).

Article of Charge No.4:

The Vice Chancellor alongwith the Registrar

made a surprise check in the department of Soil

Science on 2.3.2000 at 4.40 pm. Dr. Sankhayan

was found absent and he was called upon to

explain his position for willful absence but the

said Dr. Sankhayan did not carry out the orders

of the authority, thus violated the provisions of

Statute 8.1(1) and (2) and rendered himself liable

for disciplinary action under Statute 8.2 (1) and

(3).

Article of Charge No.5:

Dr. S.D. Sankhayan while working as Head,

Department of Soil Science harassed/mentally

tortured the non-teaching staff and directed them 14 2025:HHC:13270

to work only as per his order. This action on his

part is violative of Statute 8.1 (3) and rendered

himself liable for disciplinary action under

Statute 8.2 (1) and (8).

Article of Charge No.8:

A report of the functioning of the Department of

Soil Science was placed before the Board of

Management vide item No. 9 of its meeting held

on 2.5.2000 on which the Board of Management

decided to re-designate Dr. Sankhayan, Professor

(Soils) as Associate Director (Agriculture) and

post him in the Directorate of Research, HPKV,

Palampur. The BOM decided that in case he

refuses to accept this arrangement, the

University is free to take action against the

concerned official. A copy of the decision of BOM

was made available to him but Dr. Sankhayan

did not comply with the orders of BOM and this

action on his part is violative of Statute 8.1(1) (2)

and (3) thus rendered himself liable for 15 2025:HHC:13270

disciplinary action under Statue 8.2.(1), (3) and

(8) of HPKV Statutes.

21. Thus, petitioner had faced serious charges of

insubordination and defiance of the orders and directions of

the authorities. A disciplinary inquiry was conducted

against petitioner and on having been indicted therein, was

inflicted with penalty of compulsory retirement from service

by the disciplinary authority.

22. The petitioner is seeking declaration of entire

process of inquiry as void ab initio on the grounds as

noticed above.

23. At this stage this Court is reminded of its

restrictive jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India with respect to exercise of judicial review against

the disciplinary proceedings. It is trite that this Court can

only look into the decision making process and not the

decision itself. This court cannot examine the findings

recorded by the Inquiry Officer as a Court of appeal. In

absence of any procedural illegality or irregularity in

conduct of departmental inquiry, the charges against

delinquent stated to be proved warrant no scope of 16 2025:HHC:13270

interference. The reappreciation of evidence in disciplinary

inquiry is not permissible by this Court. However, a small

window available for interference is when the findings of

fact are totally unsupported by evidence or are such which

no reasonable person could have arrived. Reference can be

made to the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India

Ltd. and another vs. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri and

others (2009) 15 SCC 620; Allahabad Bank and others

vs. Krishna Narayan Tewari (2017) 2 SCC 308; Deputy

General Manager (Appellate Authority) and others vs.

Ajay Kumar Srivastava (2021) 2 SCC 612 and Umesh

Kumar Pahwa vs. Board of Directors Uttarakhand

Gramin Bank and others (2022) 4 SCC 385.

24. While going through the records, this Court has

not been able to find any illegality or perversity in the

decision-making process. The service rules of the

respondent-University are contained in its statutes, more

particularly Chapter VIII thereof, which deals with the

statutes regarding the conduct, discipline, enquiry,

punishment and appeal in respect of officers/teachers and 17 2025:HHC:13270

other employees of the University. No serious violation of

the procedure prescribed under aforesaid Chapter has been

pointed out. The inquiry was held by the Inquiry Officer and

the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity to defend

himself. Later, even the disciplinary authority is found to

have complied with the 'Statute 8' of the Statutes of the

University, which provides for the procedure to be adopted

by the disciplinary authority before imposition of penalty. It

also cannot be said that the findings as returned by the

Inquiry Officer were so perverse which could not have been

returned by any reasonable person. It is also not the case

where the findings of Inquiry Officer were dehors the

evidence.

25. Coming to the next contention raised on behalf of

the petitioner, it can be noticed that the service rules

applicable to the employees of respondent-University do not

delineate the imposition of minor or major penalty on proof

of particular head of charge. The imposition of penalty

depends on the severity of allegation proved against the

delinquent. The contention that under Statute 8.7 (7) the

CCS Conduct Rules and CCS (CCA) Rules should have been 18 2025:HHC:13270

followed and as per said rules, again the major penalty of

compulsorily retirement from service could not have been

imposed, deserves rejection for the same reason that even in

the CCS (CCA) Rules, no such bifurcation has been

provided.

26. Lastly, as regards the challenge to the

punishment being disproportionate, it will be relevant to

notice the settled legal position. In Coal India Ltd. (supra),

the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

"19. The doctrine of proportionality is, thus, well- recognised concept of judicial review in our jurisprudence. What is otherwise within the discretionary domain and sole power of the decision-maker to quantify punishment once the charge of misconduct stands proved, such discretionary power is exposed to judicial intervention if exercised in a manner which is out of proportion to the fault. Award of punishment which is grossly in excess to the allegations cannot claim immunity and remains open for interference under limited scope of judicial review.

20. One of the tests to be applied while dealing with the question of quantum of punishment would be: would any reasonable employer have 19 2025:HHC:13270

imposed such punishment in like circumstances? Obviously, a reasonable employer is expected to take into consideration measure, magnitude and degree of misconduct and all other relevant circumstances and exclude irrelevant matters before imposing punishment."

27. In Union of India and others vs. Constable

Sunil Kumar (2023) 3 SCC 622, it has been held by

Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:

"11. Even otherwise, the Division Bench of the High Court has materially erred in interference with the order of penalty of dismissal passed on proved charges and misconduct of indiscipline and insubordination and giving threats to the superior of dire consequences on the ground that the same is disproportionate to the gravity of the wrong. In CRPF vs. Surinder Kumar (2011) 10 SCC 244 while considering the power of judicial review of the High Court in interfering with the punishment of dismissal, it is observed and held by this Court after considering the earlier decision in Union of India vs. R.K. Sharma (2001) 9 SCC 592 that in exercise of powers of judicial review interfering with the punishment of dismissal on the ground that it was disproportionate, the punishment should not be merely disproportionate but should 20 2025:HHC:13270

be strikingly disproportionate. As observed and held that only in an extreme case, where on the face of it there is perversity or irrationality, there can be judicial review under Articles 226 or 227 or under Article 32 of the Constitution."

28. The charges proved against the petitioner are of

insubordination and defiance on more than one occasion,

which, as per the 'Statute 8.2' of the respondent-University,

constitute improper conduct.

29. The repeated insubordination by the non-

adherence to the orders of superiors, cannot be brushed

aside lightly for it will inculcate indiscipline and

disorderliness in a public institution like respondent-

University. Thus, the punishment of compulsorily

retirement of petitioner from service, in my considered view,

cannot be said to be so disproportionate so as to shake the

conscience of the Court. It cannot be said to be strikingly

disproportionate, more particularly, when it does not

completely divest the delinquent from the retiral benefits

completely.

30. The punishment proposed by the BOM against

petitioner in the first instance was dismissal from service.

21 2025:HHC:13270

On the representation of petitioner, including his request to

grant him option for voluntary retirement, the decision was

taken to compulsorily retire the petitioner from service.

31. In light of above discussion, there is no merit in

the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also

the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

9th May, 2025                                   (Satyen Vaidya)
      (GR)                                           Judge