In exceptional disciplinary cases, courts may substitute dismissal with compulsory retirement if punishment shocks conscience, considering service length, age, health, misguided intent, and unconditional apology.

JUDGMENT :

G.S. SANDHAWALIA, CJ.

1. Challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to the dismissal of the writ petition of the appellant bearing CWP No. 2279 of 2008, Major Onkar Singh Guleria (Retd.) Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others, on 08.07.2014. The learned Single Judge upheld the order of dismissal dated 04.06.2007 (Annexure P-2) and Corrigendum dated 20.06.2007 (Annexure P-3), whereby it had been clarified that in the 4th line of Para-8 of the said dismissal order, the words “removal from service” may be read as “dismissal from service.”

2. The writ petitioner had also been aggrieved by the order passed by this Court on 28.11.2005, passed in CWP No. 333 of 2003, Anil Chauhan Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others (Annexure P-5), wherein he had been asked to appear in person and was asked as to how he, being the Deputy Director of the Sainik Welfare Kangra at Dharamshala, a subordinate functionary of the State Government as well as the Central Government, had by by-passing all the normal administrate channels, addressed the communication dated 23.11.2005 (Annexure P-5), directly to the then Chief Justice of this Court, which also contained some objectionable remarks and some uncalled for comments.

3. Resultantly, prayer had made in the writ petition by the petitioner to re-instate him alongwith all service benefits on the ground that the aforesaid orders were null & void and wrong & illegal, was rejected.

4. The petitioner had appeared in person in the Writ Petition and it was noticed by the learned Single Judge that the petitioner, in his official capacity, on 26.07.2005 had addressed a communication to the then Chief Justice of this Court regarding the handing over the possession of Sainik Rest House, Kangra, for the purpose of alternative accommodation as the construction of New Courts Complex, was to start. The said communication was put up on the judicial side in CWP No. 333 of 2003 and dealt with by the Division Bench of this Court. Thereafter, the necessary explanation had been asked for from the appellant as such keeping in view the observations made by the Division Bench at that point of time, but the appellant had not stopped and again made direct correspondence with the then Chief Justice and two Senior Judges of this Court on 26.12.2005.

5. The petitioner was charge-sheeted on 01.02.2006 for this misconduct, but he had failed to appear before the Inquiry Officer, therefore, he was proceeded against ex-parte. The Inquiry Officer thereafter submitted his report by concluding that all the charges against the petitioner were of serious nature and had been duly proved in the Inquiry. Resultantly, the order dated 04.06.2007 was passed dismissing the petitioner from service.

6. Thereafter, the writ petitioner had moved an application bearing CMP No. 3253 of 2003 for being impleaded as party respondent in CWP No. 333 of 2003, which was not allowed, as the petitioner was aggrieved by order of dismissal dated 04.06.2007. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that though there was an alternative and efficacious remedy available to the petitioner under Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, but since he had not appeared in person at Dharmashala, it would be harsh and oppressive, if he was relegated to his remedy. Resultantly, the order of dismissal was upheld on the ground that the charges proved against the petitioner, were of serious nature.

7. Reli