Himachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On: 7Th August vs State Of H.P. And Another on 7 August, 2025
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
2025:HHC:26661-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.6420 of 2021
Decided on: 7th August, 2025
————————————————————————————-
Vijay Kumar Guleria .....Petitioner
.
Versus
State of H.P. and another .....Respondents
————————————————————————————-
Coram
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Whether approved for reporting? 1 Yes.
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Sohail Khan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General
with Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta and Mr. L.N.
Sharma, Additional Advocates General.
————————————————————————————
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
On culmination of disciplinary proceedings,
petitioner was visited with penalty of dismissal from service.
He assailed the punishment order as well as different
stages of the disciplinary proceedings. Learned Tribunal
disposed of the petition by holding that order passed by the
Appellate Authority was non-speaking. The Appellate
Authority was directed to pass a speaking order. The
Appellate Authority passed a speaking order and reaffirmed
1
Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.
::: Downloaded on – 13/08/2025 21:24:43 :::CIS
2
2025:HHC:26661-DB
respondents’ decision to dismiss the petitioner. Petitioner
feels aggrieved, therefore, this second petition.
2. The case
2(i). Petitioner was serving as Lecturer (Political
.
Science) in the respondent-Education Department. While he
was posted at GSSS Nabahi, District Mandi, FIR No.262
was registered against him under Sections 354, 509 and
506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Police Station
Sarkaghat, District Mandi on 28.11.2011. The FIR was
registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by ‘A’- a girl
student studying in 10+2 class in the said school, leveling
the allegations of sexual harassment against the petitioner.
2(ii). Respondents issued memorandum against the
petitioner on 21.02.2012 under Rule 14 of the Central Civil
Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (in
short ‘CCS (CCA) Rules’) for imposition of major penalty
upon him. The memorandum contained following article of
charge:-
“Article-I
That the said Sh. Vijay Kumar Guleria, Lecturer
in Political Science, GSSS Nabahi, Distt. Mandi, H.P.
presently posted at GSSS Kungrat, Distt. Una, H.P.
while working in GSSS Nabahi, Distt. Mandi, H.P.
during the year 2011 has sexually harassed one ‘A’,
student of 10+2 arts class, which is very unbecoming
on the part of the said Lecturer being a Govt. servant
and hence tantamount to misconduct, misbehavior and
violation of Rule 3(1) i, ii & iii of CCS (Conduct) Rules,::: Downloaded on – 13/08/2025 21:24:43 :::CIS
3
2025:HHC:26661-DB
1964 and Rule 8.2.2 of H.P. Education Code in
particular.”
2(iii). The memorandum was accompanied by
following statement of imputation of misconduct/
.
misbehavior:-
“Statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour
in support of the articles of charge framed against Sh.
Vijay Kumar Guleria, Lecturer in Political Science, GSSS
Nabahi, Distt. Mandi, H.P. Presently posted at GSSS
Kungrat, H.P.
Article-I
That the said Sh. Vijay Kumar Guleria, Lecturerin Political Science, GSSS Nabahi, Distt. Mandi, H.P.
presently posted at GSSS Kungrat, Distt. Una. H.P.,
while working in GSSS Nabahi, Distt. Mandi, H.P.
during the year 2011 has harassed one ‘A’, student of
10+2 Arts class sexually and verbally and the matteralso appeared in a section of press. On dated
24-11-2011 the Principal of the school was on casual
leave and Sh. Vijay Kumar Guleria being senior most
lecturer was looking after the school affairs. On that
day he called ‘A’ through Smt. Durge Devi, Peon from
10+2 Economics class. When ‘A’ came into the room, thesaid Sh. Vijay Kumar Guleria, Lecturer in Political
Science passed some derogatory remarks that “म तु हर
रोज बु लाता रहता ं तुम ों नही ं आती हो | म तुमसे ब त ादा ार करतां और कयामत तक करता र ं गा।” The said Lecturer also tried to
give a packet of mendhi and love letter to the girl
student. Being a teacher the said Lecturer wassupposed to be an ideal for the students and the
teachers are the role model for the students as they are
considered as builder of the nation. But the saidLecturer has tarnished the image of the Department in
the eyes of the general public and brought a bad name
to the institution, which is very unbecoming on the part
of the said Lecturer being a Govt. servant and hence
tantamount to misconduct, misbehaviour and violation
of Rule 3(1) i, ii & iii of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and
Rule 8.2.2 of H.P. Education Code in particular.”
::: Downloaded on – 13/08/2025 21:24:43 :::CIS
4
2025:HHC:26661-DB
2(iv). Petitioner’s reply to the above memorandum of
charges submitted on 28.02.2012 was only to the effect
that charges framed against him were false; Matter is
pending with the police authorities as FIR has been lodged
.
against him. Petitioner requested that till the decision of the
criminal trial, inquiry be not conducted.
2(v). Respondents appointed Inquiry Officer as well
as Presenting Officer. Petitioner duly participated in the
inquiry proceedings. On culmination of inquiry proceedings,
the Inquiry Officer furnished his report on 26.03.2013,
holding that charge against the petitioner had been proved.
On 26.04.2013, the respondents issued notice to the
petitioner calling for his representation against the inquiry
report while proposing to impose major penalty upon him
under Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Petitioner
represented against the inquiry report and the proposal of
the respondents to impose major penalty upon him.
2(vi). Petitioner’s representation was considered by
the disciplinary authority. It was not found satisfactory.
The disciplinary authority on 11.07.2013 (Annexure P-7),
imposed major penalty of dismissal upon the petitioner.
Appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the
Appellate Authority on 10.09.2014 (Annexure P-10).
::: Downloaded on – 13/08/2025 21:24:43 :::CIS
5
2025:HHC:26661-DB
2(vii). Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner instituted T.A.
No.1325 of 2015 before the erstwhile learned H.P.
Administrative Tribunal on the grounds that charge against
him had not been established; Inquiry Officer had
.
committed illegality in conducting the proceedings; There
was infraction of Rule 14(18) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965;
and that the penalty was extremely harsh &
disproportionate. Learned Tribunal on 11.01.2018, quashed
the order passed by the Appellate Authority on 10.09.2014
being non-speaking. Matter was remitted to the Appellate
Authority with direction to consider it afresh by passing an
appropriate order within the timelines indicated therein.
2(viii). Pursuant thereto, the Appellate Authority
reconsidered the matter and confirmed the penalty of
dismissal imposed upon the petitioner once again under
order dated 31.07.2018 (Annexure P-12).
The petitioner in the above background, has
instituted this writ petition, seeking quashing of charge-
sheet, inquiry proceedings, inquiry report, penalty order
and rejection of his appeal under order dated 31.07.2018.
Further prayer has been made for his reinstatement in
service with all consequential benefits.
::: Downloaded on – 13/08/2025 21:24:43 :::CIS
6
2025:HHC:26661-DB
3. I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General. To
avoid repetition, the submissions urged for the petitioner &
the respondent-State and discussion thereupon are being
.
elaborated hereinafter.
4. Consideration:-
4(i). The first contention raised for the petitioner is
that the findings returned by the Inquiry Officer were not
conclusive, it cannot be said that charge against the
petitioner had been proved.
I am not in agreement with the aforesaid
contention of the petitioner. This is for the following
reasons:-
4(i)(a). The charge against the petitioner was that while
working as Lecturer (Political Science) at GSSS Nabahi,
District Mandi, he had sexually harassed ‘A’, a girl student
of 10+2; Petitioner’s act and conduct was unbecoming of a
government servant, tantamounting to misconduct,
misbehavior and violative of Rule 3 of the CCS (Conduct)
Rules, 1964 and Rule 8.2.2 of H.P. Education Code in
particular.
4(i)(b). During the course of inquiry, 11 prosecution
witnesses and 03 defense witnesses were examined.
::: Downloaded on – 13/08/2025 21:24:43 :::CIS
7
2025:HHC:26661-DB
Statement of ‘A’ was also recorded. The inquiry report alsorecords that petitioner had denied asking any Peon to call
‘A’ to the office of the Principal. That he never sat in the
office of the Principal on the day in question. He had denied
.
happening of the incident altogether as alleged by ‘A’.
Rather, he cast aspersions on conduct of ‘A’.
Statement of Smt. Durgi Devi, the Peon, who
had summoned ‘A’ at the instance of the petitioner to
Principal’s office, was also recorded. Smt. Durgi Devi
corroborated the statement of ‘A’ that the petitioner had
called ‘A’ to the office of Principal and at petitioner’s
direction, Smt. Durgi Devi had entered ‘A’s classroom and
directed her to go to Principal’s office on the day in
question, whereafter ‘A’ went to the office of Principal. The
Inquiry Officer had also taken into cognizance the
statement of one Sh. Pratap Chand, posted as Lecturer
(Hindi) in the said school, inter alia, to the effect that
petitioner was sitting in the office of the Principal on the
day in question. ‘A’ had also reported the incident to Smt.
Urmila Devi-posted as Lecturer (Economics) in the school. It
would be appropriate to extract the relevant portion of the
analysis and assessment of evidence drawn by the Inquiry
Officer:-
::: Downloaded on – 13/08/2025 21:24:43 :::CIS
8
2025:HHC:26661-DB
“1. The statement of ‘A’ that Sh. Vijay Guleria called her
through Smt. Durgi Devi to the Principal’s Office was
confirmed by the statement of Smt. Durgi Devi (SW-2)
who stated that Sh. Vijay Kumar Guleria had called her
to the office of the principal and asked her to call ‘A’
student of 10+2. She went to the class room and called
‘A’ who came and entered the Principal’s room. At the.
same time on hearing the bell from the supdt. office she
went to the supdt office.
2. For other part of the statement of ‘A’ that when she
came into the room Sh. Vijay Guleria passed derogatory
remarks, she could not provide any evidence.
Smt. Anita Kumari the then DPE GSSS Nabahi
(SW-8) stated that Sh. Vijay Guleria used to sit in the
shed, Sh. Pravinder Kumar the then Lecturer in
Chemistry GSSS Nabahi (SW-9) stated that on
24-11-2011 when his period was vacant. Sh. Vijay
Kumar Guleria was sitting in the shed and mostly used
to sit in the shed. Sh. Sushil Kumar PET GMS
Batsala/GSSS Nabahi (SW-11). Sh. Prem Bhardwaj
Lecturer in Biology GSSS Nabahi (Dw-I) stated that Sh.
Vijay Guleria used to sit in the shed, Smt. Usha Rani
the then Craft Teacher GSSS Nabahi (DW-II) stated that
Sh. Vijay Kumar Guleria mostly used to sit in the shed.
None of the above mention witnesses have
categorically stated that on 24th Nov. 2011 Sh. Vijay
Guleria did not went to Principal’s office during the
school hours i.e. from 9.00 AM 10 3.00 PM. Moreover
these witnesses cannot watch any body continuously
from 9.00 AM to 3.00 PM as they have to go to teach the
students in their class rooms.
As stated by Sh. Vijay Guleria that ‘A’ and Smt.
Durgi Devi could not tell the time when they were called
to the office on 24th Nov. 2011 but it is quite clear from
the statements of ‘A’ and Smt. Durgi Devi that they
were called during the school hours i.e. from 9.00 AM to
3.00 PM.
Also Sh. Partap Chand Lecturer in Hindi GSSS
Nabahi (SW-10) stated that on dated 28th Nov. 2011 he
came to know about the incident that look place on 28th
Nov. 2011 while Sh. Vijay Kumar Guleria was sitting in
the Office of the Principal contradicts the statement that
Sh. Vijay Guleria never sit in the Principal’s office in the
absence of the Principal.
::: Downloaded on – 13/08/2025 21:24:43 :::CIS
9
2025:HHC:26661-DB
3. Sh. Vijay Kumar Guleria stated that he had not given
any letter or packet of mehandi to ‘A’.
‘A’ (SW-3) had stated that on 26th Nov. 2011 her
school bag was in the class room while she was
attending her English Lecturer along with other class
fellows in another class room in the 1st period. She
further stated that when she came back to her class,
.
she found a packet of mehandi and letter in her school
bag whose written matter resembled with the
handwriting of Sh. Vijay Kumar Guleria. She stated that
she had not told about the love letter and packet of
mahendi to the teachers as well to the principal.
5. Sh. Vijay Guleria stated that on 28th Nov. 2011 as he
left school during Morning Assembly he was attacked
by Sh. Yaswant, Sunny, Ajay and nephew of Sh.
Yaswant and was beaten by the aforesaid persons
outside and later inside the school campus, against
which he had lodged an FIR in Police Station at
Sarkaghat.
Sh. Vijay Kumar Guleria stated that he did not
had any conversation with Sh. Yaswant Singh, Sh.
Sunny, Sh. Ajay and other person involved in the
incident that took place on 28th Nov. 2011 though he
met Sunny in his shop near the school who according to
him used to sell intoxicated material to the student and
advised him not to provide intoxicants to the students.
Sh. Vijay Kumar Guleria stated that perhaps he was
beaten due to the reason that ‘A’ was directed by him
as well as by the Principal to bring her parent to the
school as her behavior and conduct was not good.
The above mentioned statement of Sh. Vijay
Guleria are proved to be false and misleading as is
evident from the information received from the Office of
the Principal GSSS Nabahi vide office letter No. EDN-
GSSS(N)/Misc/2012-2020 that no complaint regarding
the conduct of ‘A’ was received by his office and no
complaint regarding the use/supply of drugs or
intoxicants material by any shopkeeper of the Nabahi
Bazaar was received by the Office of the Principal
through Discipline Committee/SMC/Local Resident/
Panchayat Pradhan of Nabahi.
Also Sh. Pratap Chand who had taught ‘A’ for
two years in Classes 11th & 12th stated that the conduct
and behavior ‘A’ was good.
Sh. Vijay Kumar Guleria could not give
satisfactory answer to the reason that why he was
::: Downloaded on – 13/08/2025 21:24:43 :::CIS
10
2025:HHC:26661-DB
beaten by Sh. Yaswant, Sunny, Ajay, nephew of
Sh. Yaswant and local residents.
As was stated by Sh. Sunny S/o Sh. Amar Nath
(SW-4) that on 28th Nov 2011 when Sh. Yashwant Singh
the father of ‘A’ along with Sh. Prem Pal GP Pradhan,
were going to GSSS Nabahi to meet the Principal, Sh.
Vijay Kumar Guleria met them on the way near
.
Yashwant Singh’s home and fell on his feet and
apologized. When the letter was shown to Sh. Vijay
Kumar Guleria he snatched and chewed the letter and
was taken out from his mouth forcefully later on he ran
away and then caught by the local public in Nabahi
Bazaar. This statement is supported by the written
statement given by Sh. Yashwant Singh (SW-6).”
The findings of the Inquiry Officer are as under:-
“1. No documentary evidence was found regarding the
incident that took place during parliamentary activities
from 19th November to 24th November 2011. But ‘A’reported the incident verbally to Smt. Urmila Devi
Lecturer in Economics on 19th November, 2011. But thematter was not taken up with The Principal by
Smt. Urmila Devi. Instead she advised ‘A’ to report the
matter with Principal through her parents.
2. It is evident that ‘A’ was called to the Office of the
Principal by Sh. Vijay Kumar Guleria through Smt. Durgi
Devi (peon) on 24th Nov. 2011 during school hours i.e. 9
A.M. to 3 P.M.
3. There was no documentary proof that packet of
mehandi and letter were put in ‘A’s school bag by
Sh. Vijay Kumar Guleria.
4. It is evident that ‘A’ brought the matter to the notice of
Sh. Sunny and her parents on 26th November, 2011.
5. The past conduct and behavior of Sh. Vijay Kumar
Guleria and ‘A’ was found good but the conduct andbehavior of Sh. Vijay Kumar Gularia found to be
suspicious during the period of incidents stated by ‘A’.
6. It is evident that Sh. Vijay Kumar Gularia was beaten
up outside the school campus by the local people on 28th
November, 2011 and was brought by them to the school
campus around 9.30 A.M. on the same day.
7. The statements of Sh. Vijay Kumar Gularia regarding
the reasons for being beaten up by the local people
were found false and baseless.
8. It is evident that Sh. Vijay Kumar Gularia showed
negligence towards his duty on 28th November, 2011::: Downloaded on – 13/08/2025 21:24:43 :::CIS
11
2025:HHC:26661-DB
assigned to him by the principal and remained absent
from the school campus for around half an hour.
9. The purpose for which ‘A’ was called to the Principal
office by Sh. Vijay Kumar Gularia seems to be closely
linked with the sequence of events that happened with
‘A’ and the incident that took place on 28th November,
2011 as is evident from the statements of ‘A’,.
Sh. Sunny, Sh. Yashwant Singh the father of ‘A’, Sh.
Prem Pal GP Pradhan Nabahi, Sh. Mehar Chand Joshi
resident Nabahi Sh. Jai Ram (Lambardar) and
Sh. Vinod Kumar (Ex-Pradhan Nabahi).
On the basis of documentary and oral evidence
adduced in the case before me and in view of the
reason given above, I hold that the charge tantamount
to misconduct, misbehavior and violence of Rule 3(1) i,
ii, iii of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and Rule 8.2.2 (i) ofH.P. Education Code in particular against Shri Vijay
Kumar Guleria Lecturer in Pol. Science GSSS
Gaddidhar, Distt. Mandi (H.P.) has been proved.”
4(i)(c).
In view of the nature of allegations leveled by the
complainant, the circumstantial evidence was justly
analyzed by the Inquiry Officer to hold that charge against
the petitioner had been proved. It would be appropriate at
this stage to refer to Indian Oil Corporation and others
Versus Ajit Kumar Singh and another2, wherein well-
established principles were reiterated that power of judicial
review of the Constitutional Courts is restricted to
evaluation of the decision-making process and not the
merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in
treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion. The
Constitutional Court while exercising its jurisdiction of
2
(2023) 19 SCC 102
::: Downloaded on – 13/08/2025 21:24:43 :::CIS
12
2025:HHC:26661-DB
judicial review under Article 226 would not interfere with
the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental inquiry
proceedings except in a case of mala fides or perversity, i.e.
where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a
.
finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with
objectivity could have arrived at those findings and so long
as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived
at by the departmental authority, the same has to be
sustained. Scope of judicial review cannot be extended to
the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a
decision of authority as a matter of fact. Relevant portion
from the decision is as under:-
“10. The facts of the case leading to the issuance of charge-
sheet, initiation of departmental inquiry, the report of
the inquiry officer and the punishment inflicted uponRespondent 1 have already been narrated in the
preceding paragraphs. It is not in dispute that during
the course of inquiry, fair opportunity of hearing was
afforded to Respondent 1 at every stage. This was evenfound by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the
writ petition challenging the punishment inflicted uponhim. The judgment passed by the Division Bench of the
High Court shows that matter was dealt with in a
manner as if it was the first stage of the case, namely,the inquiry was being conducted and inquiry report was
being prepared, which is not the scope in judicial
review.
11. The views expressed by this Court on the scope of
judicial review in SBI v. Ajai Kumar Srivastava3, are
extracted below:
“24. It is thus settled that the power of judicial review,
of the constitutional courts, is evaluation of the3
(2021) 2 SCC 612::: Downloaded on – 13/08/2025 21:24:43 :::CIS
13
2025:HHC:26661-DB
decision-making process and not the merits of the
decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment
and not to ensure fairness of conclusion. The
court/tribunal may interfere in the proceedings
held against the delinquent if it is, in any manner,
inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in
violation of the statutory rules prescribing the.
mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or
finding reached by the disciplinary authority is
based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding
be such as no reasonable person would have ever
reached or where the conclusions upon
consideration of the evidence reached by the
disciplinary authority are perverse or suffer from
patent error on the face of record or based on no
evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be
issued. To sum up, the scope of judicial review
cannot be extended to the examination of
correctness or reasonableness of a decision of
authority as a matter of fact.
25-27 xx xx xx
28. The constitutional court while exercising its
jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 or
Article 136 of the Constitution would not interfere
with the findings of fact arrived at in the
departmental enquiry proceedings except in a
case of mala fides or perversity i.e. where there is
no evidence to support a finding or where a
finding is such that no man acting reasonably
and with objectivity could have arrived at those
findings and so long as there is some evidence to
support the conclusion arrived at by the
departmental authority, the same has to be
sustained.”
(emphasis supplied)
Similar view was expressed in the later judgment
of this Court in Mukesh Kumar Raigar v. Union of
India4.
In exercise of power of judicial review, the
evidence led during inquiry is not to be re-appreciated by
4
(2023) 11 SCC 159
::: Downloaded on – 13/08/2025 21:24:43 :::CIS
14
2025:HHC:26661-DB
the Constitutional Court as if it’s a Court of appeal.
Petitioner has not leveled allegations of malafides. It was
not a case of no evidence. The Inquiry Officer justly
analyzed the evidence and based upon just & bonafide
.
evaluation, formed his view that charge was proved against
the petitioner.
The point is accordingly answered against the
petitioner.
4(ii). Petitioner’s second contention is that inquiry
conducted against the petitioner is vitiated as Rule 14(18)
of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 had not been complied
with. The said Rule reads as under:-
“14. Procedure for imposing major penalties
14(18) The Inquiring Authority may, after the Governmentservant closes his case, and shall, if the Government
servant has not examined himself, generally question
him on the circumstances appearing against him in the
evidence for the purpose of enabling the Governmentservant to explain any circumstances appearing in the
evidence against him.”
The precise argument raised for the petitioner is
that the prosecution had completed its entire evidence on
15.12.2012. In accordance with Rule 14(18) of the CCS
(CCA) Rules, the Inquiry Officer was to give an opportunity
to the delinquent official-petitioner to lead defense evidence.
It was only after the completion of defense evidence that the
petitioner could have been asked to make statement in case
::: Downloaded on – 13/08/2025 21:24:43 :::CIS
15
2025:HHC:26661-DB
he had not examined himself. The petitioner in that
situation could have been questioned by the Inquiry Officer
for the purpose of enabling him (delinquent official) to
explain any circumstances that appeared in the evidence
.
against him. In the instant case, petitioner had cited three
defense witnesses. They were required to be examined first,
however, the Inquiry Officer examined the petitioner on
15.12.2012, i.e. the day when the prosecution completed its
evidence. The statements of defense witnesses were
recorded on 29.12.2012. Learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner urges that this breach in the procedure
prescribed under Rule 14(18) of the CCS (CCA) Rules
vitiates the inquiry proceedings. Reliance in support of this
submission has been placed upon Ministry of Finance
and another Versus S.B. Ramesh5 and Moni Shankar
Versus Union of India and another6.
In my considered view, in the given facts and
circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that inquiry
proceedings suffered from any illegality:-
4(ii)(a). The mandate of Rule 14(18) is only to ensure
that the delinquent official is given an opportunity to
explain any circumstance that appears in the evidence
5
(1998) 3 SCC 227
6
(2008) 3 SCC 484::: Downloaded on – 13/08/2025 21:24:43 :::CIS
16
2025:HHC:26661-DB
against him. In case he doesn’t examine himself, theInquiry Officer can also question him on the incriminating
evidence that appeared against him in the inquiry. Though
ideally in terms of Rule 14(18) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, that
.
opportunity should be given to the delinquent official after
he closes his defense. In the instant case, statement of
delinquent official (petitioner) was recorded before he
examined his witnesses, but nonetheless after the
examination of prosecution witnesses. Whatever
incriminating material had to come against the petitioner,
was available in light of the evidence adduced by the
prosecution witnesses. It is not as if the delinquent official
(petitioner) objected to recording of his statement before
examination of his witnesses. No prejudice has been
demonstrated to have been caused to the petitioner merely
for the reason that his statement was recorded prior to
recording of statement of his witnesses. The delinquent
official did not examine himself thereafter. There is no such
request on his part after the closure of his defense.
Therefore, the plea that inquiry proceedings are vitiated
only for the reason that delinquent official was examined by
the Inquiry Officer prior to recording of statements of his
witnesses cannot be countenanced. Mere change in order of
::: Downloaded on – 13/08/2025 21:24:43 :::CIS
17
2025:HHC:26661-DB
examination of witnesses will not vitiate the inquiry
proceedings in absence of demonstration of any prejudice
caused to the petitioner.
4(ii)(b). In S.B. Ramesh5 and Moni Shankar6, there
.
was violation of Rule 14(16) & (18) of the CCS (CCA) Rules
as the delinquent official was not afforded opportunity to
lead evidence after closure of the evidence of the presenting
side. Ratio of these decisions does not govern the fact
situation of the present case where delinquent official was
given an opportunity to respond to incriminating material
presented against him by the prosecution.
This point is also answered against the
petitioner.
4(iii). It was further urged that the penalty order
passed by the disciplinary authority is not in conformity
with Rule 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules. That the
disciplinary authority was required to issue notices to the
petitioner at two stages. Firstly, while forwarding the
inquiry report seeking comments from the petitioner & his
representation against the inquiry report, if any and
secondly, at the stage of imposition of penalty.
This contention is also not justified. Notice was
admittedly issued by the disciplinary authority to the
::: Downloaded on – 13/08/2025 21:24:43 :::CIS
18
2025:HHC:26661-DB
petitioner on 26.04.2013 giving him an opportunity to
represent against the inquiry report. The notice clearly
states that ‘matter has been inquired into…….. During
inquiry, the charge stands proved against the
.
petitioner……. Now, therefore, it is proposed to impose
major penalty under Rule 11(ix) of the CCS (CCA) Rules,
1965 upon the petitioner……… The petitioner is given an
opportunity to make representation as he may wish to
make against the proposal to take action against him under
Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965′. The petitioner also
comprehended the memorandum in its letter & intent and
furnished his representation against the proposed action of
the respondents. The contention urged for the petitioner
that a second notice was required to be issued to the
petitioner under Rule 15 for imposition of penalty cannot be
accepted in view of clear provision of Rule 15(6), which
states that it shall not be necessary to give the government
servant any opportunity of making representation on the
penalty proposed to be imposed. The Rule reads as under:-
“15(6) If the Disciplinary Authority having regard to its
findings on all or any of the articles of charge and on
the basis of the evidence adduced during the inquiry is
of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in
Clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 11 should be imposed on the
Government servant, it shall make an order imposing
such penalty and it shall not be necessary to give the
Government servant any opportunity of making
representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed.”
::: Downloaded on – 13/08/2025 21:24:43 :::CIS
19
2025:HHC:26661-DB
It needs to be stated here that though mention
of proposed penalty in the notice issued to the delinquent
official inviting his representation against inquiry report,
has been deprecated in several authoritative
.
pronouncements of Hon’ble Apex Court and of this Court,
however, in the given facts, keeping in view present to be
the second round of litigation, this aspect is not being
dwelled upon. This point was neither taken by the
petitioner in his representation (Annexure P-8) nor before
the learned Tribunal in his first round of litigation. This has
also not been raised in the instant petition. The point was
not urged during hearing as well. Further, this point is not
required to be pondered over now since the petitioner, if felt
aggrieved against this, ought to have raised it specifically,
during his first round of litigation. The point relatable to
violation of Rule 15 as urged during first round of litigation
was that the orders passed by the disciplinary and the
Appellate Authority were non-speaking, hence, in violation
of Rule 15. The first round of litigation ended with learned
Tribunal directing the Appellate Authority to pass a
speaking order on the appeal preferred by the petitioner.
Petitioner had not raised this issue (penalty being
mentioned in the notice issued to him) in his appeal. The
::: Downloaded on – 13/08/2025 21:24:43 :::CIS
20
2025:HHC:26661-DB
point relatable to violation of Rule 15 of the CCS (CCA)
Rules, 1965 urged during hearing of this case was that two
notices should have been issued. This has been answered
against the petitioner.
.
4(iv). Lastly, plea of penalty of dismissal being
disproportionate to the charge proved against the
petitioner has been raised. It has been urged for the
petitioner that:- During the pendency of disciplinary
proceedings, the petitioner, ‘A’ and her parents entered into
a compromise for withdrawing the FIR. Affidavits were
sworn in to this an effect by ‘A’ that she had no objection
for withdrawal of the FIR. That the allegations leveled by
her were on account of some confusion; To the similar
effect, an affidavit was sworn in by her father; Vide order
dated 07.03.2015, learned Trial Court allowed the
application under Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure
Code for withdrawing the case against the petitioner.
Petitioner was acquitted of the offence punishable under
Sections 354, 509, 506 and 201 IPC. It has further been
urged that in view of the compromise effected between the
parties, the Director Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh
had taken a decision on 31.03.2015 at Note No.120 (page
122 of the paper book) to reinstate the petitioner with
::: Downloaded on – 13/08/2025 21:24:43 :::CIS
21
2025:HHC:26661-DB
immediate effect though this was not given effect to. The
punishment of dismissal imposed upon the petitioner under
these circumstances, is highly disproportionate. Learned
Senior Counsel urged that in case the findings returned by
.
the Inquiry Officer, as affirmed by the disciplinary authority
and the Appellate Authority, are not intended to be
interfered with, then, keeping in view 22 years of service
rendered by the petitioner, the penalty of dismissal ought to
be substituted by compulsory retirement. Learned
Additional Advocate General opposed the plea and defended
the penalty imposed upon the petitioner as commensurate
to the charge established against him. Responding to N-120
(page 122 of the paper-book), learned Additional Advocate
General submitted that said was a spur of moment decision
taken solely based upon closure of the FIR. Later, facts and
legal position were comprehended not only by the Director
Higher Education, but by all other concerned including the
higher authorities, deciding against the petitioner.
At this stage, it will be appropriate to refer to the
decision rendered in The State of Himachal Pradesh &
Others Versus Hoshiar Singh7, wherein, a teacher was
accused of molesting a minor girl student, but later a
7
CWP No.2944 of 2018, decided by the Division Bench on 12.01.2024
::: Downloaded on – 13/08/2025 21:24:43 :::CIS
22
2025:HHC:26661-DB
compromise was effected between the two. State’s appeal
was allowed against the judgment passed by the learned
Single Judge allowing the writ petition and pension paid to
the respondent was ordered to be recovered from him.
.
Relevant paras of the decision read as under:-
“The respondent, while working as TGT(A) in
Government Senior Secondary School, Bathu Tipri, District
Kangra, was served a Charge-Sheet under Rule 14 of Central
Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,
1965, on charges of molesting a minor girl student on
03.02.2001, who was studying in 7th standard.
20) In Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra8, the
Supreme court held:
“28. … In a case involving charge of sexual harassment or
attempt to sexually molest, the courts are required to
examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get
swayed by insignificant discrepancies or narrow
technicalities or the dictionary meaning of the
r expression “molestation”. They must examine theentire material to determine the genuineness of the
complaint. The statement of the victim must be
appreciated in the background of the entire case.
Where the evidence of the victim inspires confidence,
as is the position in the instant case, the courts are
obliged to rely on it. Such cases are required to bedealt with great sensitivity. Sympathy in such cases in
favour of the superior officer is wholly misplaced and
mercy has no relevance. ..”
21) The Administrative Tribunal in the impugned order ought to
have looked at the matter in this perspective and applied
common sense and come to a reasonable conclusion instead
of taking a perverse view that there is no specific finding of
grave misconduct against the respondent.
22) Counsel for the respondent sought to contend that the
evidence in the inquiry did not prove the charge against the
respondent.
23) In our opinion, the Inquiry Officer, on the basis of
circumstantial evidence, found the respondent guilty of the
misconduct, and if the respondent had any grievance about
the said finding after receipt of the inquiry report on
14.05.2010, he ought to have filed a reply thereto questioning
the findings, but in spite of being granted time of one month
to file such a reply on 17.05.2010, he did not choose to file
any reply. It is not open to the respondent to raise such a plea
8
(1999) 1 SCC 759
::: Downloaded on – 13/08/2025 21:24:43 :::CIS
23
2025:HHC:26661-DB
in this Writ petition filed by the petitioners/State challenging
the order of the Tribunal.
26) Both these contentions are devoid of merit in view of the
proceeding Annexure P-1 dt. 28.12.2010 issued by the
Director of Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh to the
Principal Secretary (Education) filed in this Writ petition. The
said proceeding indicates that the Director accepted the
.
findings of the inquiry report, having been made on the basis
of documentary evidence adduced, and had clearly opined
that conduct of the respondent had led to putting a blot on the
sacred relationship between the teacher and the taught, so
much so, that the aggrieved girl had to quit her studies
forever. He noted that teacher, i.e. respondent, had managed
to escape himself from the clutches of law after entering into
compromise with the parents of minor girl and ultimately, the
innocent minor girl was the worst sufferer, who had to quit
her studies forever.
30) In this view of the matter, the Writ petition is allowed; the
order dt. 20.07.2017 in T.A. no.3938 of 2015 passed by the
erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal, is set-aside; and the
order dt. 18.07.2011 passed by the petitioners/State, is
sustained. Recovery be effected from the respondent of the
amount which he had received as pension till date.”
In Union of India and others Versus Ex.
Constable Ram Karan9, Hon’ble Apex Court held that
discretion vests with disciplinary authority to impose
punishment commensurate with nature of offence proved
which cannot be usurped by Court. The authorities being
fact finding have exclusive power to consider the evidence
with a view to maintain discipline. The High Court while
exercising power of judicial review cannot normally
substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some
other penalty. It is only when the penalty imposed appears
9
(2022) 1 SCC 373
::: Downloaded on – 13/08/2025 21:24:43 :::CIS
24
2025:HHC:26661-DB
to be shockingly disproportionate to the nature of
misconduct that the Courts would frown upon and in
appropriate case may suitably mould the relief either
directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider
.
the penalty imposed or to shorten the litigation, it may itself
in exceptional and rare cases impose appropriate
punishment with cogent reasons. It was held as under:-
“24. Even in cases where the punishment imposed by the
disciplinary authority is found to be shocking to theconscience of the Court, normally the disciplinary
authority or the Appellate Authority should be directed
to reconsider the question of imposition of penalty. The
scope of judicial review on the quantum of punishment
is available but with a limited scope. It is only when thepenalty imposed appears to be shockingly
disproportionate to the nature of misconduct that the
Courts would frown upon. Even in such a case, after
setting aside the penalty order, it is to be left to the
disciplinary/Appellate Authority to take a call and it is
not for the Court to substitute its decision by prescribingthe quantum of punishment. However, it is only in rare
and exceptional cases where the court might to shorten
the litigation may think of substituting its own view as
to the quantum of punishment in place of punishmentawarded by the competent authority that too after
assigning cogent reasons.
25. The principles have been culled out by a three-Judge
Bench of this Court way back in B.C. Chaturvedi vs.
Union of India and Others10 wherein it was observed asunder:
“18. A review of the above legal position would
establish that the disciplinary authority, and on
appeal the Appellate Authority, being fact-finding
authorities have exclusive power to consider the
evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They
are invested with the discretion to impose
appropriate punishment keeping in view the
magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High10
(1995) 6 SCC 749::: Downloaded on – 13/08/2025 21:24:43 :::CIS
25
2025:HHC:26661-DB
Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of
judicial review, cannot normally substitute its
own conclusion on penalty and impose some
other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the
disciplinary authority or the Appellate Authority
shocks the conscience of the High
Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the.
relief, either directing the disciplinary/Appellate
Authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to
shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional
and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment
with cogent reasons in support thereof.”
26. It has been further examined by this Court
in Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Rajendra
Singh11 as under:
“19. The principles discussed above can be
summed up and summarised as follows:
19.1. When charge(s) of misconduct is proved in
an enquiry the quantum of punishment to
be imposed in a particular case is
r essentially the domain of the departmental
authorities.
19.2. The courts cannot assume the function of
disciplinary/departmental authorities and
to decide the quantum of punishment and
nature of penalty to be awarded, as this
function is exclusively within thejurisdiction of the competent authority.
19.3. Limited judicial review is available to
interfere with the punishment imposed bythe disciplinary authority, only in cases
where such penalty is found to be shocking
to the conscience of the court.
19.4. Even in such a case when the punishment is
set aside as shockingly disproportionate to
the nature of charges framed against thedelinquent employee, the appropriate course
of action is to remit the matter back to the
disciplinary authority or the Appellate
Authority with direction to pass appropriate
order of penalty. The court by itself cannot
mandate as to what should be the penalty
in such a case.
11
(2013) 12 SCC 372
::: Downloaded on – 13/08/2025 21:24:43 :::CIS
26
2025:HHC:26661-DB
19.5. The only exception to the principle stated in
para 19.4 above, would be in those cases
where the co-delinquent is awarded lesser
punishment by the disciplinary authority
even when the charges of misconduct were
identical or the co-delinquent was foisted
with more serious charges. This would be on
.
the doctrine of equality when it is found
that the employee concerned and the
co-delinquent are equally placed. However,
there has to be a complete parity between
the two, not only in respect of nature of
charge but subsequent conduct as well after
the service of charge-sheet in the two cases.
If the co-delinquent accepts the charges,
indicating remorse with unqualified
apology, lesser punishment to him would be
justifiable.”
27. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, the High
Court, in our considered view, fell in error in interfering
with the punishment, which could lawfully be imposed
by the departmental authorities for his proven
misconduct. The High Court should not have substituted
its own discretion for that of the authority. What
punishment was required to be imposed, in the facts
and circumstances of the case, was a matter which fell
exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent
authority and the interference made by the High Court
is in a cavalier manner while recording the finding of
penalty to be disproportionate without taking into
consideration the seriousness of the misconduct
committed by the respondent which is unpardonable
and not sustainable in law.
28. Before we may conclude, we would like to observe that
the employees who are in civil services, their
disciplinary matters are being governed by their
respective services (classification, control and appeal)
rules and for the sake of instance, we take note of the
Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and
Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter being referred to as the
“Rules 1965”). The nature of penalties has been
provided under Part V and removal and dismissal from
service are in the category of “Major penalties”. If the
misconduct is found proved, looking into the gravity and
the nature of misconduct, either of the punishment, i.e.,
removal or dismissal from service, could be inflicted
upon the civil servant after holding disciplinary enquiry
::: Downloaded on – 13/08/2025 21:24:43 :::CIS
27
2025:HHC:26661-DB
for imposing major penalties if held guilty as provided
under Part IV of the Rules 1965 and this what being
ordinarily understood.”
The petitioner was serving as Teacher.
Relationship between the teacher and student is pious
.
relationship. Merely because the complainant had agreed
& furnished an affidavit for not pressing the charges
against the petitioner and on the said premise, criminal
trial was closed, would not advance the case of the
petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings to urge that
penalty of dismissal imposed against him was
disproportionate. It is well settled that criminal proceedings
stand on a different footing than the disciplinary
proceedings. Even acquittal in the criminal case would not
ipso-facto govern the fate of the disciplinary proceedings.
The disciplinary proceedings were conducted against the
petitioner. The charge leveled against the petitioner was
duly proved in the inquiry proceedings. There is no
infraction of any procedure in the inquiry proceedings.
Inquiry proceedings are not even alleged to be vitiated by
any mala fide or suffering from violation of principles of
natural justice. The misconduct proved on part of the
petitioner is serious. The Inquiry Officer found the
petitioner guilty of sexually harassing ‘A’-a girl student of
::: Downloaded on – 13/08/2025 21:24:43 :::CIS
28
2025:HHC:26661-DB
the school where he was teaching. Act of sexually harassing
a student by her teacher is a grave misconduct. Petitioner’s
acts put a blot on the sacred relationship between the
teacher and the taught. The penalty imposed upon the
.
petitioner in the given facts does not warrant any
interference.
5. For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in the
instant petition. The same is accordingly dismissed
alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
r Jyotsna Rewal Dua
August 07, 2025 Judge
Mukesh
::: Downloaded on - 13/08/2025 21:24:43 :::CIS