Case Summary: Dr. Subhash Thakur v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (2025)

The case of Dr. Subhash Thakur v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. is a significant judgment addressing procedural fairness in departmental inquiries and the standards for imposing penalties on government servants. The Himachal Pradesh High Court, in this case, set aside disciplinary actions against the petitioner, Dr. Subhash Thakur, on the grounds of inconclusive findings in the departmental inquiry and lack of legally acceptable evidence.

Citation: 2025:HHC:18369

Court: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Coram: Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ranjan Sharma

Date of Decision: 17 June 2025

Background and Factual Matrix

Dr. Subhash Thakur, a Medical Officer (Anaesthetist) posted at Civil Hospital, Khaneri, Rampur Bushehr, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, was charged with allegedly participating in a private surgery at Shrikhand Hospital, Rampur, on the night of 29 January 2016. This surgery reportedly resulted in the death of a 60-year-old patient named Narinder Singh.

Despite receiving a non-practising allowance (NPA) from the government—a benefit tied to the restriction that government doctors cannot engage in private practice—Dr. Thakur was accused of assisting Dr. Rajeshwar Thakur in conducting this illegal surgery at a private hospital.

Disciplinary Proceedings

1) Preliminary Inquiry:

An initial internal inquiry was conducted by Dr. T.C. Mahant, Deputy Director of Health Services. His report, dated 1 February 2016, concluded that both Dr. Subhash Thakur and Dr. Rajeshwar Thakur had rendered unauthorised services in a private hospital, thereby violating service rules.

2) Departmental Inquiry:

Based on the preliminary inquiry, disciplinary proceedings were initiated under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. Dr. B.M. Gupta, Joint Director Health Services, was appointed as the Inquiry Officer.

3) Inquiry Report:

The Departmental Inquiry Report submitted on 12 February 2018 was inconclusive. The Inquiry Officer stated that the “possibility” of Dr. Thakur assisting in the surgery “cannot be ruled out”—a speculative finding rather than a definitive one.

4) Penalty Imposed:

Despite the ambiguous findings, the Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty on 8 May 2018, reducing Dr. Thakur’s pay by one stage for three years, with no increment during the penalty period, although increments post-penalty were not to be delayed.

5) Rejection of Appeal:

Dr. Thakur’s appeal against this punishment was rejected by the Additional Chief Secretary (Health) on 27 August 2018, affirming the disciplinary penalty.

Petition and Legal Issues Raised

Following the dissolution of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, the Original Application filed by Dr. Thakur was transferred to the High Court and re-registered as CWPOA No. 7220 of 2020.

Dr. Thakur sought:

• Quashing of the Preliminary and Departmental Inquiry Reports.
• Setting aside the penalty and appellate orders.
• A declaration that the departmental action was arbitrary, baseless, and devoid of conclusive proof.

Key issues raised:

1. Whether the charge of private practice was conclusively established.
2. Whether the penalty imposed was legally sustainable in the absence of a definitive finding of guilt.
3. Whether the evidence relied upon by the Disciplinary Authority was legally admissible or not.

Evidence and Defence by Petitioner

Dr. Thakur relied upon the following documents:

Annexure A-11: Operation Theatre Register of Civil Hospital, Khaneri, showing his presence at the hospital on the evening of 29 January 2016, indicating his duty in the government facility.

Annexure A-12: Consent Form from Shrikhand Hospital signed before the surgery on Narinder Singh. The form listed Dr. Brij Thakur as the surgeon, and the anaesthetist’s column was left blank, suggesting Dr. Subhash Thakur did not participate.

He argued:

• He did not assist in any surgery at Shrikhand Hospital.
• The Inquiry Report was non-conclusive and thus insufficient to impose a penalty.
• The prosecution relied on photocopied statements, which were neither recorded by the Inquiry Officer nor verified as per law.

Evidence Relied Upon by State

The State relied primarily on:

1. Statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by Staff Nurses Kumari Deepika and Manju Thakur, recorded by a Magistrate and tendered by ASI Bhagat Ram.
2. Deposition of ASI Bhagat Ram before the Inquiry Officer.
3. Memorandum dated 22 September 2016 detailing articles of charge, list of documents, and list of witnesses.

However, critical weaknesses included:

• No direct testimony from the staff nurses before the Inquiry Officer.
• No examination of the Magistrate or recording of the authenticity of Section 164 statements.
• The staff nurses were not cited as witnesses in the charge sheet.

Court’s Observations

The High Court made several vital observations:

1. Non-Conclusive Inquiry Report: The Inquiry Officer did not declare the charge to be “proved” or “not proved”. He merely stated that the “possibility” of Dr. Thakur’s involvement could not be ruled out. Such a finding is vague and does not meet the standard required for disciplinary action.
2. Improper Acceptance of Report: The Disciplinary Authority failed to either remand the matter for clarification or further inquiry. Instead, it proceeded to impose a penalty despite the lack of conclusive findings.
3. Unreliable Evidence: The reliance on photocopies of statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C., without verifying their authenticity or examining the nurses or the Magistrate, rendered the evidence legally unreliable. These statements were not part of the inquiry process as they were not introduced by proper witnesses.
4. Violation of Natural Justice: The State failed to rebut the documents submitted by the petitioner (e.g., hospital register, consent form), which indicated his presence at the government hospital at the relevant time and absence from the private hospital.
5. No Legal Basis for Punishment: Without a clear finding of guilt, the imposition of a penalty violated the service jurisprudence principle that disciplinary punishment must be based on proven charges.
6. Delay and Prejudice: The incident dated back to 2016, and the petitioner had faced stigma and professional hardship for nearly a decade. Hence, a de novo inquiry at this stage was deemed inappropriate.

Final Judgment and Directions

The High Court allowed the petition with the following key rulings:

1. Quashed Orders: The penalty order dated 8 May 2018 and the appellate rejection order dated 27 August 2018 were both quashed.
2. No Further Inquiry: The Court declined to order a fresh inquiry, noting the long delay, lack of evidence, and prejudice already suffered by the petitioner.
3. Consequential Reliefs: The petitioner was entitled to all consequential benefits resulting from the quashing of the penalty.

Significance and Legal Principles Affirmed

This judgment reiterates key principles of administrative and service law:

1. Burden of Proof in Departmental Inquiries: The Inquiry Officer must record whether the charges are proved or not. Mere suspicions or speculative language are insufficient.
2. Requirement of Legally Admissible Evidence: Disciplinary Authorities cannot rely on unverified photocopies or unsworn witness statements. Proper evidentiary procedures must be followed.
3. Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness: If a government servant provides documentary evidence countering allegations, and such evidence is not refuted, then adverse findings cannot be sustained.
4. Judicial Review of Departmental Proceedings: While High Courts do not usually reappreciate evidence, intervention is warranted when there is a manifest error, procedural irregularity, or miscarriage of justice.
5. Finality in Service Disputes: Where proceedings drag on for years with no concrete outcome, courts may grant closure rather than ordering repetitive inquiries that prolong the ordeal.

Click Here to Read the Official Judgment

Conclusion

The High Court’s ruling in Dr. Subhash Thakur v. State of Himachal Pradesh serves as a vital precedent on how disciplinary proceedings must adhere to due process and cannot be based on presumptions or vague findings. It underscores the need for clarity, legal rigour, and fairness in upholding the rights of public servants against arbitrary departmental actions.