Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2921

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, J
Shiv Kumar Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State Of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
CWPOA No. 610 of 2019

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sunil Mohan Goel, Raman Jamalta
For the Respondents: Anup Rattan, Hemant Kumar Verma

A disciplinary authority exercising quasi-judicial functions must record independent findings and reasons when rejecting a delinquent employee's representation. Non-compliance with this mandate renders the penalty order arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice, as the authority must demonstrate the application of its mind.

Headnote:(A) Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 - Rule 15(2-A) - Service Law - Disciplinary proceedings - Requirement of recording findings - A disciplinary authority is mandated to record findings after considering the representation submitted by a delinquent employee - Merely stating that the reply is not satisfactory is insufficient and fails to meet the legal requirement to record reasons for a decision - Failure to record independent findings frustrates the purpose of the representation process and violates principles of natural justice. (Paras 17, 18, 20, 23)

(B) Administrative Law - Quasi-judicial orders - Necessity of reasons - Reasons are the hallmark of a judicial or quasi-judicial decision and serve as live links between the mind of the decision-maker and the conclusion - Absence of reasons renders an order arbitrary and precludes effective appellate or revisional review. (Paras 19, 21)

Facts of the case:
A government employee was charge-sheeted following allegations of unauthorized classification changes in land records and failure to report encroachments. While the inquiry officer found one charge proved, the disciplinary authority imposed a penalty of reduction to the initial scale of pay without recording independent reasons for rejecting the employee's representation. An appellate authority set aside this penalty, but a revisional authority subsequently restored the penalty order. The employee challenged these proceedings, citing procedural lapses and failure to provide reasoned orders.

Findings of Court:
The disciplinary authority failed to independently apply its mind and provided no reasons for rejecting the employee's representation, rendering the penalty order unsustainable. The revisional authority also failed to provide independent reasoning, instead relying solely on the disciplinary authority's mechanical concurrence with the inquiry report.

Issues: The main issues were the necessity of recording independent findings by the disciplinary authority under the relevant service rules and whether the failure to record reasons for rejecting a representation vitiates the penalty order.

Ratio Decidendi: The recording of reasons is a fundamental principle of natural justice. Under sub-rule (2-A) of the applicable service rules, the disciplinary authority must not merely concur with the inquiry officer but must record its own findings after considering the employee's response to ensure fairness and prevent arbitrariness in administrative decision-making.

Result: Petition allowed. The order of the revisional authority and the underlying disciplinary penalty were quashed. Retiral benefits and salary arrears were directed to be paid.

Table of Content
1. factual history of disciplinary proceedings and subsequent review. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
2. mandatory requirement of recording independent findings by disciplinary authority. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
3. reasons are a hallmark of fair quasi-judicial decision-making. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
4. inadequacy of reasons in disciplinary orders versus appellate/revisional review. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
5. remedial discretion to quash proceedings upon superannuation. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)

By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:-

“A) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari quashing order dated 26.2.2011, Annexure P 11 passed by Respondent No.1 vide which it allowed the review petition filed by Respondent No.2 by setting aside the order passed by Appellate Authority and upholding the order of Disciplinary Authority.

B) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus directing Respondents not to act on the basis of order dated 26.2.2011 and by holding that Order dated 7.10.2010 passed by Learned Appellate Authority is good in law and is thus upheld.”

2. A memorandum dated 22.05.2008 (Annexure P-1) alongwith articles of charge was issued to the petitioner, who was working as Patwari, by respondent No.2, to the effect that firstly; he while working as Patwari in Patwar Circle, Chamba Town-II in the year 2001, changed Girdawari of land comprised in Khasra No.9011/2877 measuring 39.1 sq. yards, owned by Sh. Gopal Singh Son of Sh. Kahan Singh, R/o Moh. Kasakra, Chamba Town on 29.09.2001 and thereafter issued fake agriculturist certificate to him on 11.12.2002 just to provide him undue benefit of agriculturist in contravention of the provisions of the Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, which was in violation of Rule 3 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct Rules) (for short “CCS (Conduct) Rules’) and secondly; during the course of Girdawari, he did not detect and report encroachment on government land measuring 60-0 Sq. Yards by Sh. Gopal Singh, son of Sh. Kahan Singh R/o Moh. Kasakra, Chamba Town, who had constructed his house, which land was adjoining to his land measuring 39.1 Sq. Yards to propose to hold an inquiry against him and asked to submit his written statement and also to state whether he wants to be heard in person.

3. The petitioner submitted reply to the charges and denied the same. It was submitted that the charges levelled against him are false and frivolous. He had changed classification of the private land as per undisputed position found on the spot according to prevailing provision of Para No.9.9(k) of HP Land Records Manual (1992 Edition). The petitioner has not issued the alleged agriculture certificate to Gopal Singh Son of Sh. Kahan Singh and whatever report was given on 11.12.2002 was given on the basis of the entries of revenue record i.e. Khasra Girdawari. So far as second charge was concerned, it was stated that while working as Patwari Circle Chamba Town-II, there was no encroachment on Govt. land as alleged. Respondent No.2 was not satisfied with the reply and proceeded with the departmental enquiry. He appointed the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. as Enquiry Officer.

4. The Enquiry Officer, after conducting the enquiry in respect of Charge No.1, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had changed Girdawari of land comprised in Khasra No.9011/2877 measuring 39.1 sq. yards, owned by Sh. Gopal Singh Son of Sh. Kahan Singh, R/o Moh. Kasakra, Chamba Town on 29.09.2001 and issued fake agriculturist certificate to him on 11.12.2002 just to provide him undue benefit of agriculturist. As per Khasra Girdawari of years 1998, 1999 and 2000, Khasra No. 9011/2877 belonging to Kuldeep Chand, Gopal Chand etc. measuring 39.1 Sq. Yards has been shown to be used as residential

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2921

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLAJiya Lal Bhardwaj, JShiv Kumar Sharma – AppellantVersusState Of Himachal Pradesh – RespondentCWPOA No. 610 of 2019

Cases Referred (8)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, J
Shiv Kumar Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State Of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
CWPOA No. 610 of 2019