Himachal Pradesh High Court
Surinder Kumar vs H.R.T.C & Ors on 14 May, 2025
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
( 2025:HHC:13864 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA
Decided on: 14.05.2025
Surinder Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
H.R.T.C & Ors. ....Respondents.
...........................................................................................
Coram
Ms Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioner: Mr. H.R. Bhardwaj, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J
Petitioner is aggrieved against an order issued by
respondent No.3-the Deputy Divisional Manager, HRTC, on
06.03.2024 (Annexure P-2) imposing the penalty of stoppage of one
annual increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect
upon the petitioner. The appellate authority has also affirmed this
penalty order.
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes
( 2025:HHC:13864 )
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered
the case file.
3. Following order was passed in the matter on
09.05.2025:-
"Notice. Mr. Dixit Sahotra, Advocate vice Mr. Deepak
Sharma, learned counsel, appears and waives service of notice on
behalf of the respondents.
Let the respondents come up with the instructions/reply as
to whether before imposing penalty of stoppage of one annual
increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect upon
the petitioner, provisions of Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965
were followed by them or not.
List on 14.05.2025."
Pursuant thereto, learned counsel for the respondents
has placed on record instructions dated 13.05.2025 from respondent
No.3 and submitted that the said instruction be treated as the stand
of the respondents as separate reply is not intended to be filed by
them. The matter has been heard accordingly.
4. Respondents have given following background in their
instructions prompting them to proceed against the petitioner:- 'Sh.
Surinder Kumar 4th driver of this Unit was deputed with bus No.
HP69-4992 on 19.11.2023, which was catering as Bilaspur to Shimla
& back Bilaspur-Chamba up to Hamirpur. The said driver changed
the bus with routine bus in the workshop without giving any defect.
( 2025:HHC:13864 )
Next day on routine checking, said bus was inspected and during
checking it has been found that there was no M.oil Top up in the said
bus and consumed 11 liters moil and and whereas total capacity of
M.oil in the oil sump of bus is 15 liters and top up quantity of 11 liter
moil is too high, which may lead to engine seize.'
According to the respondents, in view of above,
negligence in performance of duty, a show cause notice was issued
to the petitioner on 07.12.2023. Petitioner furnished his reply on
23.12.2023 inter alia stating therein that he had checked the mobile
oil of the bus in question and found it to be satisfactory; Upon
arriving at Bilaspur, passengers were shifted to routine bus but he
did not check the bus again at Bilaspur as the bus was late and
passengers were getting impatient.
According to the respondents, petitioner's reply was not
found satisfactory. A memo of charges was issued to him on
05.01.2024 under Rule 16 of the Central Civil Services
(Classification Control and Appeal) [in short CCS(CC&A)] Rules
1965. Petitioner tendered his reply to the chargesheet on 30.01.2024
denying the charges. His reply was found unsatisfactory. He was
given an opportunity of personal hearing on 29.02.2024. Petitioner's
explanation failed to satisfy respondent No.3. Accordingly,
respondent No.3 held the petitioner guilty of charges and imposed
upon him penalty of stoppage of one annual increment for a period
( 2025:HHC:13864 )
of two years without cumulative effect under order dated 05.03.2024.
The order was affirmed by the appellate authority on 10.11.2025.
5. Under Rule 11(iv) of the CCS(CC&A) Rules, withholding
increments of pay of a Government employee is a minor penalty:-
"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) to (iii)............................
(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;
( 2025:HHC:13864 )
(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;
( 2025:HHC:13864 )
(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
( 2025:HHC:13864 )
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 05.01.2024 for
imposing minor penalty. The petitioner had denied the charges
levelled against him. 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 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 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 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 06.03.2024 (Annexure P-2) &
( 2025:HHC:13864 )
10.01.2025 (Annexure P-3) 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
Judge
May 14, 2025(rohit)
