Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1671

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.
Dr. Parkash Chand Daroch - Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others - Respondent
CWP No.9170 of 2025
Decided On : 02-12-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Tarun Brakta, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Rajat Choudhry, Assistant Advocate General

Post-retirement disciplinary proceedings on unverified pseudonymous complaint, ignoring guidelines and contradicting inquiry findings, quashed; retiral benefits not withholdable without proving serious misconduct per law.

Headnote:(A) CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965; CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 - Rule 9; CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 - Rule 3 - Post-retirement memorandum of charges issued invoking Rule 9 CCS (Pension) Rules for proceedings under CCS (CCA) Rules on allegations of irregular purchases of equipment/furniture worth over Rs.80 lakhs without tenders or per Finance Department instructions - Complaint prima facie pseudonymous (varying signatures, unverified address, non-appearance); guidelines on anonymous/pseudonymous complaints not followed; hasty fact-finding inquiry; charges contradicting committee findings (e.g., direct order allegation belied by committee noting purchase committee decision) - No loss caused, items received/verified - Proceedings wholly illegal, quashed; retiral benefits (DCRG, Leave Encashment) directed released forthwith as cannot be withheld sans authority establishing serious misconduct, per Article 300-A. (Paras 4(i), 4(ii), 5)

(B) Judicial review of charge memos - Restraint ordinarily exercised; interference warranted only in rare cases if wholly without jurisdiction/illegal. (Para 4)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner, superannuated and re-employed for six months, faced third memorandum post-retirement on purchase irregularities during tenure as Medical Superintendent; prior two memos quashed in writs; DCRG/Leave Encashment withheld pending proceedings initiated on complaint to Health Secretary, promptly referred to fact-finding committee without veracity check.

Findings of Court:
Fact-finding committee noted purchases per local purchase committee decisions, items inspected/received/entered before payment; no evidence of rate finalization per instructions or references to other entities verified, but no pecuniary loss; charges issued mechanically contrary to report.

Issues: Validity of proceedings on unverified pseudonymous complaint; procedure followed for inquiry/charge issuance; legality of withholding retiral benefits sans proved misconduct.

Ratio Decidendi: Action on pseudonymous complaints impermissible per vigilance guidelines unless verified/owned; mechanical post-inquiry charges contradicting findings unsustainable; retiral dues protected, withholdable only on specific finding of serious misconduct post due process.

Result: Writ petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. prior charge memos against petitioner quashed by courts (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)

JUDGMENT :
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.

Respondents issued two memorandum of charges to the petitioner, one in the year 2022 and the other in 2023. Both these memorandums were quashed by the Court in two writ petitions filed by the petitioner. Petitioner superannuated on 31.10.2024. After his superannuation, the third memorandum of charges was issued to him on 05.11.2024. Interestingly, in view of the services rendered, petitioner was also simultaneously re-employed for six months after his retirement. On account of the third memorandum of charges issued to the petitioner, respondents have withheld his Death-cum- Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) and Leave Encashment. In this petition, challenge has been laid to the memorandum of charges issued to the petitioner on 05.11.2024 and respondents’ action of withholding DCRG & Leave Encashment from the petitioner.

2. The case

2(i). A memorandum of charges was issued to the petitioner on 09.05.2022 under the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (in short ‘CCS (CCA) Rules’). This was questioned by the petitioner in Dr. Prakash Chand Daroch Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Another, CWP No.3451 of 2022, decided on 21.11.2022 wherein following reliefs were claimed:-

“(a). That impugned show cause notice dated 28.02.2022, Annexure P-1 and Memo dated 09.05.2022 containing article of charge, Annexure-4 may very kindly be quashed and set-aside with directions to the respondents not to harass and humiliate the petitioner;

(b) That present is a case, particularly in view of orders of this Hon’ble court, for calling for the records to lift the veil, in which directions may very kindly be issued to respondent No.1 to look and inquire into the matter personally as with respect to malafide use of powers by officers added party by name and proceed against them for misconduct as per service jurisprudence and to place on record the inquiry report and Action Taken Report of this case so that the same may be an eye opener for others not to harass and humiliate, the employees like the petitioner.”

The writ petition was allowed as under:-

“16. Although, this Court does not interfere in the matter where show cause notice or inquiry has been initiated against an employee but the facts of the present case are peculiar. In the present case, matter in dispute has already been duly inquired into and as per the report of the SDO (Civil), Una, dated 27.04.2018 SMO-cum- Member Secretary, RKS, Regional Hospital, Una had been found to be responsible in issuing the allotment letter in favour of Vivek Singhal. The said inquiry report does not show that the petitioner had any role to play in allotment of Shop to Vivek Singhal. However, now again action is sought to be taken against the petitioner with regard to allotment made in favour of Vivek Singhal vide letter/order dated 29.09.2017 and the said allotment already stands cancelled. Now the proceedings are sought to be initiated against the petitioner by placing reliance on decision of this Court in CWP No. 4753 of 2020, whereas, the petitioner was not a party in the said writ petition nor the allotment of shop made in favour of Vivek Singhal vide order dated 29.09.2017 was in issue. It is only the respondents who were party in the CWP No.4753 of 2020, had to be proceeded against by the Chief Secretary Government of H.P. for necessary action.

17. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the petition deserves to be allowed.

18. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned show cause notice dated 28.02.2022, Annexure P-1 and Memorandum dated 09.05.2022 Annexure P-4 contained in article of charge are quashed.”

2(ii). Respondents issued another memorandum of charges to the petitioner on 03.08.2023. This was assailed by him in Dr. Parkash Chand Daroch Versus State of Himachal Prades