Back
2025 Supreme(HP) 329
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
JYOTSNA REWAL DUA, J.
Surinder Kumar - Appellant
Versus
The HRTC and Others - Respondents
CWP No. 4380 of 2025
Decided On : 14-05-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : H.R. Bhardwaj
For the Respondents: Deepak Sharma
Disciplinary actions must adhere to procedural fairness, including providing a reasoned order and conducting an inquiry, to comply with principles of natural justice.
Headnote:
(A) Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 - Rule 11(iv) and Rule 16 - Penalty of stoppage of one annual increment for two years without cumulative effect imposed on petitioner - Respondents failed to follow due process as required under Rule 16, lacking a reasoned order and inquiry - Principles of natural justice not complied with. (Paras 5, 6)
(B) Natural Justice - Requirement of a reasoned order and opportunity for inquiry is fundamental to ensure fairness in disciplinary proceedings. (Paras 6, 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the penalty imposed by the Deputy Divisional Manager for negligence in duty related to vehicle maintenance, which was affirmed by the appellate authority.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the disciplinary authority did not provide a reasoned order or conduct an inquiry, violating principles of natural justice.
Issues: The main issues were whether the disciplinary authority followed the required procedures under Rule 16 and whether the principles of natural justice were upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the lack of a reasoned order and failure to hold an inquiry constituted a violation of natural justice, necessitating the quashing of the penalty.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.
1. 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.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file.
3. Following order was passed in the matter on09.05.2025:-
“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.
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 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 mi
