Mohan Lal Thakur vs Himachal Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. & Anr.

CWPOA No.3266 of 2019.

Reserved on: 21st August, 2025.

.

Decided on: 9th September, 2025.

Mohan Lal Thakur .... Appellant.

Versus

Himachal Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. & Anr.

....Respondents.

Coram:

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner: Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Prashant Sharma, Advocate.

Satyen Vaidya, Judge.

Aggrieved against impugned order/resolution

dated 22.06.2013, Annexure P-14 issued by respondent No.2,

petitioner has filed the instant petition for following

substantive reliefs: -

(i) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue

a Writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned order/a

copy of resolution dated 22 nd June, 2013, Annexure P-

14;

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2025 21:27:24 :::CIS 2 ( 2025:HHC:30711 )

(ii) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to

direct the respondents to produce before this Hon'ble

Court the entire record of the case;"

.

2. The order impugned herein has been passed by

the Board of Directors of Himachal Pradesh State Civil

Supplies Corporation Ltd., whereby the services appeal of

petitioner has been rejected.

3. The petitioner was posted as Incharge of Retail

21.02.1990.

r to Shop Himachal Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.

(for short "HPSCSC"), Auckland, Shimla from 05.05.1989 to

It was alleged that on inspection of the retail

shop of Auckland in January, 1990 extra ordinary shortage of

essential commodities was noticed. Consequently, the

petitioner faced disciplinary action as also criminal trial under

Section 409 of the IPC. In criminal trial, petitioner was

acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class (II),

Shimla in case No. 7/1 of 1993 vide judgment dated

07.06.1999. The acquittal of petitioner was challenged by the

State of Himachal Pradesh before this Court in Criminal

Appeal No. 386 of 1999, which was dismissed vide judgment

dated 03.08.2010.

4. The petitioner was served with charge memo with

following Articles of Charge:-

::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2025 21:27:24 :::CIS 3 ( 2025:HHC:30711 )

"ARTICLE OF CHARGE-1

That the said Sh. Mohan Lal Thakur, while functioning as Sale Depot Incharge at H.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Retail Shop,

.

Auck Land (Lakkar Bazar, Shimla Town, during the

period from the 1st April, 1989 to 21 February, 1990, has failed to maintain devotion to duty and

absolute integrity. He has not maintained proper record / accounts of the said Shop as per procedure of the Corporation. As soon, he had misappropriated /embezzled corporation's stocks /

funds to the tune of Rs. 60,795.98 paise, (Rupees Sixty Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety Five and Paise Ninety Eight only). Thus violated Rule -3 of

Central Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and bye

laws 13 & 15 of the Corporation.

ARTICLE OF CHARGE-II

That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid Retail Shop of H.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. As Sale Depot

Incharge, the said Sh. Mohan Lal Thakur, has misappropriated / embezzled Corporation's stocks /

funds to the tune of Rs. 29,979.79 paise (Rupees Twenty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy Nine

and paise Seventy eight only) by selling essential commodities handled by him on behalf of the corporation, in black market for his wrongful gain. The matter was detected at the time of inspection."

5. The petitioner contested the charge in regular

inquiry under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules conducted

against him. The inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry

::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2025 21:27:24 :::CIS 4 ( 2025:HHC:30711 )

Officer indicted the petitioner and found both the charges

proved against him.

6. The disciplinary authority concurred with the

.

findings of the Inquiry Officer and imposed the major penalty

of removal from service vide order dated 30.03.1991.

7. The petitioner assailed the punishment order by

availing remedy of service appeal before the Board of

Directors of HPSCSC (for short "BOD"). The BOD dismissed

the service appeal of the petitioner vide order dated

27.03.1992. The said order was assailed by the petitioner

before the erstwhile State Administrative Tribunal but

remained unsuccessful and the Original Application filed by

the petitioner was rejected on 01.08.2001. The dismissal

order passed by the State Administrative Tribunal was

assailed before this Court by filing CWP No.1275 of 2001. This

Court disposed of CWP No. 1275 of 2001 vide order dated

17.12.2001 by granting liberty to the petitioner to file an

appropriate application before the State Administrative

Tribunal pointing out all the issues which were addressed

before the learned Tribunal and were not dealt with by the

said forum. In sequel, the petitioner filed review petition No.

68 of 2008 before the State Administrative Tribunal. On

abolition of State Administrative Tribunal, the Review Petition

::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2025 21:27:24 :::CIS 5 ( 2025:HHC:30711 )

came to be transferred to this Court and was allowed vide

order dated 19.11.2010. The order dated 01.08.2001 passed

by the learned Tribunal in OA No. 2910 of 1994 was recalled.

.

The review petition was disposed of in following terms: -

"6. In that view of the matter, we set aside

Annexure A-6 with direction to the Board of Directors/appellate authority under the Corporation to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner against the punishment of removal from

service with reference to all the grounds taken by the petitioner in the appeal and addressed before the Board of Directors at the time of hearing.

Needless to say that the petitioner will be afforded

an opportunity of hearing by the appellate authority. Order shall also be passed by the appellate authority within a period of four months from the date of production of copy of this

judgment by the petitioner."

8. In compliance to the aforesaid directions, the BOD

of HPSCSC called the petitioner for hearing on 21.12.2010.

Vide order dated 27.12.2010, Annexure P-6, dismissed the

service appeal of petitioner on the basis of findings recorded

by the service appeal committee. It will be apt to notice that

on being called upon to decide the service appeal of

petitioner vide judgment dated 19.11.2010, the BOD of

HPSCSC had referred the matter to the service appeal

committee which had submitted its report to the BOD.

::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2025 21:27:24 :::CIS 6 ( 2025:HHC:30711 )

9. The petitioner again assailed the order dated

27.10.2010 of the BOD by way of Civil Writ Petition before this

Court, which was registered as CWP No. 7833 of 2011. The

.

said petition was disposed of vide judgment dated 26.09.2012

in following terms:-

"4. Now significantly the Board of Directors themselves did not consider and decide the appeal. The Board of Directors evolved a self

serving procedure which is not in accordance with the law, rules, guidelines, policy or articles of the institution. It assigned its authority to a Service Appeal Committee, to examine the merits of the

appeal. Now significantly all the members of the

Service Appeal Committee are not members of the Board of Directors. The impugned order, as also the minutes of the meeting of the Board of

Directors dated 28.6.2011, which were produced in the Court, do not reveal that there is any independent application of mind by the Board of

Directors on the petitioner's appeal. They have simply approved the recommendations of the

Service Appeal Committee while deciding the petitioner's appeal.

5. The Apex Court in Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank vs. Jagdish Sharan Varshney and others, (2009) 4 SCC 240 has held as under:-

"5. In our opinion, an order of affirmation need not contain as elaborate reasons as an order of reversal, but that does not mean that the order of affirmation need not contain any reasons whatsoever. In fact, the said decision in Prabhu Dayal

::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2025 21:27:24 :::CIS 7 ( 2025:HHC:30711 )

Grover case [(1995) 6 SCC 279] has itself stated that the appellate order should disclose application of mind. Whether there was an application of mind or not can only

.

be disclosed by some reasons, at least in

brief, mentioned in the order of the appellate authority. Hence, we cannot accept the proposition that an order of

affirmation need not contain any reasons at all. That order must contain some reasons, at least in brief, so that one can

know whether the appellate authority has applied its mind while affirming the order of the disciplinary authority."

6. Hence the appellate authority cannot be said

to have decided the appeal on merits by applying

its independent mind. As such, the impugned order dated 27.7.2011 (Annexure P-6) is quashed with a direction to the Board of Directors to decide

the appeal, strictly in terms of the judgment passed by this Court on 19.11.2010 (Annexure P-

2). Needful be positively done within a period of

two months from the date of receipt of certified

copy of this judgment.

With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of, so also the pending

application(s), if any.

10. The BOD once again considered the service appeal

of petitioner and has dismissed the same vide impugned

order Annexure P-14.

11. The petitioner filed the review of the aforesaid

decision of the BOD which is stated to have remained

::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2025 21:27:24 :::CIS 8 ( 2025:HHC:30711 )

pending. In the aforesaid backdrop, the instant petition has

been filed.

12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and

.

have also gone through the entire record carefully.

13. Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate learned counsel

representing the petitioner has laid stressed on following

grounds.

"a) That it had been proved beyond doubt that the disciplinary authority had passed the punishment order without r supplying the inquiry report to the

petitioner before passing of such order and thus, there was a clear case of violation of principles of natural justice.

b) The petitioner had been acquitted from all the criminal charges on the same

set of facts and evidence and thus, he was entitled to be exonerated of the

charges on the similar facts in disciplinary proceedings,"

14. Indisputably, the petitioner is in third round of

challenge to the order of the Appellate Authority before this

Court. While disposing of Civil Review No. 68 of 2008 vide

judgment dated 19.11.2010 along with CWP(T) No. 45 of 2010

(OA No. 2910 of 1994) a Division Bench of this Court had

observed that the Appellate Authority i.e. BOD had dismissed

::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2025 21:27:24 :::CIS 9 ( 2025:HHC:30711 )

the service appeal of petitioner without addressing the

grounds raised by the petitioner in the appeal. The right of

petitioner in the service appeal to make an attempt for

.

change of heart before the appellate authority was held to be

most important facet of the principle of natural justice and

fairness. With this background, the judgment dated

19.11.2010, Annexure P-2 was passed.

15. The Hon'ble Division Bench had taken into notice

the grounds raised by the petitioner before the Appellate

Authority viz. he was innocent in the matter; no inquiry report

had been given to him; he was forced to make admission

regarding misappropriation so as to recover the amount from

the insurance company; he had been found innocent by the

criminal court and the procedure followed in the inquiry was

vitiated.

16. Similarly, in the second round of petitioner before

this Court, what was looked into was the legality and

propriety of the order passed by the Appellate Authority i.e.

BOD of HPSCSC in service appeal of petitioner. This Court

while delivering judgment dated 26.09.2012 in CWP No. 7833

of 2011, Annexure P-12 had specifically found lack of

independent application of mind by the BOD as the said

::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2025 21:27:24 :::CIS 10 ( 2025:HHC:30711 )

authority was found to have passed the order on the basis of

proceedings held by service appeal committee.

17. Thus, by way of instant petition, the petitioner

.

cannot be allowed to enhance the scope of challenge except

to the impugned order Annexure P-14. It is more than settled

that this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India will normally not hold judicial review

as to the administrative decision, only the legality and

propriety of decision-making process can be gone into at the

touchstone of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

18. The impugned order reveals that the objections

raised by the petitioner with respect to the non-supply of

inquiry report had been rendered infructuous. The BOD had

held that though copy of inquiry report was not supplied to

the petitioner before imposing penalty but the same was

made available to him along with the penalty order dated

30.03.1991. The BOD had taken cognizance on this

procedural lapse and had directed the disciplinary authority

to supply to the petitioner copy of the inquiry report. In

compliance, the disciplinary authority had supplied the

inquiry report to the petitioner and despite that the petitioner

had failed to make any representation against the inquiry

report or the proposed penalty. On such premise, the

::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2025 21:27:24 :::CIS 11 ( 2025:HHC:30711 )

Appellate Authority has held that the petitioner could not be

allowed to raise a grievance on account of alleged violation of

principle of natural justice.

.

19. Petitioner in the instant petition has not been able

to refute the aforesaid findings of fact recorded by the

Appellate Authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner would

contend that the supply of inquiry report after passing of

punishment order would not cure the defect. He has placed

reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the matter of Managing Director, ECIL,

Hyderabad and Others vs. B. Karunakar & Ors.,

(1993)4 SCC 727 in which it has been held as under:-

"28. The position in law can also be looked at from a slightly different angle. Article 311(2) says that the employee shall be given a "reasonable opportunity of

being heard in respect of the charges against him".

The findings on the charges given by a third person

like the enquiry Officer, particularly when they are not borne out by the evidence or are arrived at by

overlooking the evidence or misconstruing it, could themselves constitute new unwarranted imputations. What is further, when the proviso to the said Article states that "where it is proposed after such inquiry to impose upon him any such penalty such penalty may be imposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during such inquiry and it shall not be necessary to give such person any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed", it in effect

::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2025 21:27:24 :::CIS 12 ( 2025:HHC:30711 )

accepts two successive stages of differing scope. Since the penalty is to be proposed after the inquiry, which inquiry in effect is to be carried out by the disciplinary authority (the Inquiry Officer being only his delegate

.

appointed to hold the inquiry and to assist him), the

employee's reply to the Inquiry Officer's report and consideration of such reply by the disciplinary authority also constitute an integral part of such

inquiry. The second stage follows the inquiry so carried out and it consists of the issuance of the notice to show cause against the proposed penalty and of considering

the reply to the notice and deciding upon the penalty. What is dispensed with is the opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed and not of opportunity of making representation on the report of

the Inquiry Officer. The latter right was always there.

But before the 42nd Amendment of the Constitution, the point of time at which it was to be exercised had stood deferred till the second stage viz., the stage of

considering the penalty. Till that time, the conclusions that the disciplinary authority might have arrived at both with regard to the guilt of the employee and the

penalty to be imposed were only tentative. All that has

happened after the 42nd Amendment of the Constitution is to advance the point of time at which the representation of the employee against the enquiry

Officer's report would be considered. Now, the disciplinary authority has to consider the representation of the employee against the report before it arrives at its conclusion with regard to his guilt or innocence of the charges.

29. Hence it has to be held that when the Inquiry Officer is not the disciplinary authority, the delinquent employee has right to receive a copy of the inquiry Officer's report before the disciplinary authority arrives

::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2025 21:27:24 :::CIS 13 ( 2025:HHC:30711 )

at its conclusions with regard to the guilt or innocence of the employee with regard to the charges levelled against him. That right is a part of the employee's right to defend himself against the charges levelled against

.

him. A denial of the Inquiry Officer's report before the

disciplinary authority takes its decision on the charges is a denial of reasonable opportunity to the employee to prove his innocence and is a breach of the principles

of natural justice."

20. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied

upon a judgment passed by this Court on 30.08.2024 in

CWPOA No. 2598 of 2019, titled as Roshan Lal Banyal

VS. State of H.P. & Ors., to assert that the non-supply of

inquiry report was a serious violation of the principle of

natural justice. In addition, learned counsel for the petitioner

also placed reliance on paragraphs No.23 and 24 of the

judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of

India vs. R.P. Singh, reported in (2014)7 SCC 340, which

reads as under:-

"23. At this juncture, we would like to give our

reasons for our respectful concurrence with S.K. Kapoor (supra). There is no cavil over the proposition that the language engrafted in Article 320(3)(c) does not make the said Article mandatory. As we find, in the T.V.Patel's case, the Court has based its finding on the language employed in Rule 32 of the Rules. It is not in dispute that the said Rule from the very inception is a part of the 1965

::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2025 21:27:24 :::CIS 14 ( 2025:HHC:30711 )

Rules. With the efflux of time, there has been a change of perception as regards the applicability of the principles of natural justice. An Inquiry Report in a disciplinary proceeding is required to be furnished

.

to the delinquent employee so that he can make an adequate representation explaining his own stand/stance. That is what precisely has been laid

down in the B.Karnukara's case. We may reproduce the relevant passage with profit: -

"Hence it has to be held that when the enquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority, the delinquent employee has a right to receive a copy of the enquiry officer's report before the disciplinary authority arrives at its

conclusions with regard to the guilt or

innocence of the employee with regard to the charges levelled against him. That right is a part of the employee's right to defend himself against the charges levelled against him. A

denial of the enquiry officer's report before the disciplinary authority takes its decision on the charges, is a denial of reasonable opportunity to the employee to prove his

innocence and is a breach of the principles of natural justice."

24. We will be failing in our duty if we do not refer to another passage which deals with the effect of non-

supply of the enquiry report on the punishment. It reads as follows: -

"[v] The next question to be answered is what is the effect on the order of punishment when the report of the enquiry officer is not furnished to the employee and what relief should be granted to him in such cases. The answer to this question has to be relative to the punishment awarded. When the employee is dismissed or removed from service and the

::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2025 21:27:24 :::CIS 15 ( 2025:HHC:30711 )

inquiry is set aside because the report is not furnished to him, in some cases the non- furnishing of the report may have prejudiced him gravely while in other cases it may have made no difference to the ultimate punishment

.

awarded to him. Hence to direct reinstatement

of the employee with back-wages in all cases is to reduce the rules of justice to a mechanical ritual. The theory of reasonable opportunity and the principles of natural

justice have been evolved to uphold the rule of law and to assist the individual to vindicate his just rights. They are not incantations to be invoked nor rites to be performed on all and

sundry occasions. Whether in fact, prejudice has been caused to the employee or not on account of the denial to him of the report, has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case. Where,

therefore, even after the furnishing of the

report, no different consequence would have followed, it would be a perversion of justice to permit the employee to resume duty and to get all the consequential benefits. It amounts

to rewarding the dishonest and the guilty and thus to stretching the [pic]concept of justice to illogical and exasperating limits. It amounts to an "unnatural expansion of

natural justice" which in itself is antithetical to justice."

25. After so stating, the larger Bench proceeded to state that the court/tribunal should not mechanically

set aside the order of punishment on the ground that the report was not furnished. The courts/tribunals would apply their judicial mind to the question and give their reasons for setting aside or not setting aside the order of punishment. It is only if the court/tribunal finds that the furnishing of report could have made a difference to the result in the case then it should set aside the order of

::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2025 21:27:24 :::CIS 16 ( 2025:HHC:30711 )

punishment. Where after following the said procedure the court/tribunal sets aside the order of punishment, the proper relief that should be granted to direct reinstatement of the employee with liberty to

.

the authority/ management to proceed with the enquiry, by placing the employee under suspension and continuing the enquiry from that stage of

furnishing with the report. The question whether the employee would be entitled to the back wages and other benefits from the date of dismissal to the date of

reinstatement, if ultimately ordered, should invariably left to be decided by the authority concerned according to law, after the culmination of the

proceedings and depending on the final outcome."

21. Noticeably, this Court while deciding the CWPOA

No. 2598 of 2019, titled as Roshan Lal Banyal vs. State of H.P.

& Ors., had placed reliance on the constitutional bench

judgment in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad vs.

Karunakar, AIR 1994 SC 1074. In R. P. Singh (supra) also

the Hon'ble Supreme Court had followed the same principle

as enunciated in the case of B. Karunakar.

22. There is no dispute to the proposition of law that

the non-supply of inquiry report amounts to violation of

principle of natural justice. However, simultaneously, the

omission should have caused prejudice to the case of the

delinquent.

::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2025 21:27:24 :::CIS 17 ( 2025:HHC:30711 )

23. Coming to the facts of the case, as noticed above,

though the initially punishment order was passed against the

petitioner by the disciplinary authority without prior supply of

.

copy of inquiry report but later the rectification was made on

the asking of the BOD and the inquiry report was made

available to the petitioner. Even thereafter, the petitioner did

not make any representation, the fact assumes importance in

the background, when the petitioner had continuously been

laying challenge to the punishment inflicted upon him.

Despite previous two rounds before this Court, the petitioner

could not secure an order that the inquiry or the punishment

order was vitiated. Every time, flaws were found in the orders

of Appellate Authority and the matter was remitted to the

said authority to reconsider the appeal of the petitioner.

24. Even otherwise, the petitioner has not been able to

show any specific prejudice caused to him by the non-supply

of inquiry report. The petitioner was indicted by the inquiry

officer on the basis of evidence produced before him coupled

with the fact that the petitioner had admitted his guilt.

Noticeably, the petitioner has not assailed the findings of

inquiry officer to that effect being perverse. What has been

alleged is that he was forced to make admission under a

promise to get the amount indemnified from the insurer. The

::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2025 21:27:24 :::CIS 18 ( 2025:HHC:30711 )

Appellate Authority vide impugned order has not found any

substance in the claim of the petitioner that he was forced to

make an admission. The petitioner has not been able to show

.

that such findings by the Appellate Authority was illegal or

perverse. The petitioner has also not been able to place on

record any supporting material to prove that he was forced to

make the admission.

25. The other contention raised by the learned counsel

for the petitioner that the acquittal of petitioner in criminal

trial should have benefited him in disciplinary proceedings

also deserves to be rejected. The petitioner has placed

reliance on a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

In Maharana Pratap Singh vs. State of Bihar & Ors, Civil

Appeal No. 5497 of 2025, on 23rd April, 2025, wherein the

Hon'ble Supreme Court taking note of the judgment passed

by the same Court in Ram Lal vs. State of Rajasthan,

(2024)1 SCC 175 has held that though acquittal in criminal

case does not automatically entitle the accused to have an

order of setting aside of his dismissal from public service

following disciplinary proceedings, it is well established that

when charges, evidence, witness and circumstances in both

the departmental inquiry and criminal proceedings are

identical or substantially similar, the situation assumes a

::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2025 21:27:24 :::CIS 19 ( 2025:HHC:30711 )

different context. In such cases, upholding the findings in the

disciplinary proceedings would be unjust, unfair and

oppressive.

.

26. Again, there cannot be any dispute to the

proposition of law as canvassed by the learned counsel for

the petitioner. However, the aforesaid proposition is served

with a caveat; as can be noticed from the aforesaid judgment

itself wherein it has been held that to assess the degree of

similarity between the charges, evidence, witnesses and

circumstances in the disciplinary and criminal proceedings, it

is indeed crucial to review the material placed before the

Court, where such an issue arises.

27. In the facts of the case at hand, the judgment of

acquittal passed by the Division Bench of this Court reveals

that the acquittal of petitioner had itself bases on non-

examination of material witnesses and other technical ground

viz. procurement of specimen handwriting and signatures of

the accused during the investigation against the law laid

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sukhbinder v. State

of Punjab, (1994)5 SCC 152. Thus, the acquittal of

petitioner from criminal charges was clearly on technical

grounds. Whereas, in the inquiry held by the inquiry officer

the material witnesses had made depositions against the

::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2025 21:27:24 :::CIS 20 ( 2025:HHC:30711 )

petitioner. Above all, the petitioner had admitted his guilt. In

this view of the matter, parallels cannot be drawn in the

material which had been before the criminal court vis-a-vis

.

the material before the disciplinary authority.

28. In light of above discussion, I do not find any

material to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed with no order as

to the costs, so also, the pending applications, if any.

(Satyen Vaidya)

Judge 9th September, 2025.

(jai)

::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2025 21:27:24 :::CIS