Dismissed¶91

Purna Nand v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC2 Apr 2026CWPOA/2016/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Departmental enquiry; second marriage during subsistence of first marriage; failure to maintain family; Rule 21 CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964; Rule 11(vi) CCS (CCA) Rules 1965; major penalty; reversion to Veterinary Pharmacist; preponderance of probabilities versus proof beyond reasonable doubt; criminal-case precedents distinguished in disciplinary matters; merger of orders; unchallenged revisional order 29.03.2013; Article 226 limited scope; disciplinary authority need not record reasons; writ petition dismissed; Himachal Pradesh.

What did the court decide?

The orders under challenge (Disciplinary Authority order dated 29.04.2008 and order dated 04.12.2008) have merged in the final order dated 29.03.2013; until and unless that revisional order was questioned, the petitioner could not have been granted any relief. ¶45

Purna Nand Vs State of Hp — Writ and Judicial Review | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶91

Issue for consideration

Whether the departmental enquiry and disciplinary orders were vitiated — vague, ambiguous, indefinite and incomplete charge-sheet, denial of opportunity to cross-examine the complainant and other witnesses, and alleged bias of the Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority — warranting quashing of the charge-sheet, enquiry report and penalty/appellate orders. +3 more

¶36

Court's answer

Allegations of malafide cannot be gone into because the petitioner has not impleaded the Enquiry Officer by name; the allegations have also not been substantiated.

¶46

Ratio / Principle

¶45

Key takeaways

Findings in a departmental enquiry are based on the principle of preponderance of probabilities; the criminal-trial standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not apply, so criminal-case judgments relied on by counsel are inapposite to testing enquiry findings.ratio¶57
The Enquiry Officer returned positive findings that the petitioner had contracted second marriage during subsistence of first marriage; this Court cannot sit as an Appellate Court to alter such findings when no material on record shows them to be perverse.ratio¶69
The other grounds urged — vague charge-sheet, lack of proper opportunity, and illegal enquiry — are not supported by any tangible material placed on record.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, J.) dismisses CWPOA No.2016 of 2019 in which an Animal Husbandry Assistant sought quashing of his charge-sheet dated 01.11.2006, enquiry report dated 27.06.2007, major-penalty order dated 29.04.2008 (reversion to Veterinary Pharmacist under Rule 11(vi) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965) and appeal-rejection order dated 04.12.2008, arising from charges of failure to maintain family and remarriage contrary to Rule 21 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Holds: (i) the orders under challenge have merged in the revisional order dated 29.03.2013 (Annexure P-10), which modified the penalty but was not challenged, so relief could not be granted; (ii) enquiry findings rest on preponderance of probabilities, hence Supreme Court judgments rendered in criminal cases (Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande; Kanwal Ram; Smt. Priya Bala Ghosh) demanding proof of the marriage do not govern departmental findings; (iii) scope under Article 226 to interfere with penalty is very limited — penalty quashable only on flagrant procedural violation, the Court cannot sit as appellate authority over positive enquiry findings absent perversity, and cannot review enquiry evidence; (iv) Disciplinary Authority need not assign separate reasons where the Enquiry Officer found charges proved (relying on Boloram Bordoloi and S. Sree Rama Rao).

¶1

2026:HHC:9863

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWPOA No.2016 of 2019 Reserved on: 20.03.2026 Decided on: 2nd April, 2026

¶3

Purna Nand Sharma ...Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Himachal Pradesh and others ...Respondents

¶6

____________________________________________________________________ Coram_

¶7

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶8

For the petitioner: Mr. Vinay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General.

¶9

Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge

¶10

By way of present petition, the petitioner has

¶11

prayed for the following substantive reliefs:-

¶12

“(a) Quashing and setting aside the order dated 04.12.2008 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Pr. Secretary (AH) to the Government of H.P. (Respondent No.1) and also the order dated 29.04.2008 (Annexure P-8) passed by respondent No.2.

¶13

(b) The enquiry report dated 27.06.2007 (Annexure P-7) on the basis of which the penalty is imposed on

¶14

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶15

¶16

the petitioner may also be quashed along with the entire proceeding being against procedure and law. (c) The charge sheet dated 1-11-2006 issued by respondent No.2 may also be quashed and set aside.”

¶17

Shorn of unnecessary details, the key facts of the

¶18

case are that the petitioner, who was working as Animal Husbandry Assistant, was issued a charge-sheet dated 01.11.2006 (Annexure P-2) on two articles of charges, which are as follows:-

¶19

“Article -I: That Shri Purna Nand, Animal Husbandry Assistant while functioning as Animal Husbandry Assistant at Veterinary Dispensary, Taksal, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, H.P, during the month of October 2005 onwards failed to look after the proper maintenance of his family in contravention of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

¶20

Article-II: That Shri Purna Nand while functioning as Animal Husbandry Assistant, Veterinary Dispensary Taksal, Distt. Solan, H.P. during the period 10/2005 onwards entered into/contracted remarriage in contravention of Rule, 21 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.”

¶21

The petitioner filed reply to the charge-sheet and

¶22

denied the charges. Thereafter, regular enquiry was conducted

¶23

after following the due process of law. In the enquiry report, a

¶24

¶25

conclusion was drawn by the Enquiry Officer that the petitioner came to the office on 15.12.2006 and made partial confession regarding his first son in the Pariwar Register of Nirmand Panchayat and further his statement that Amit is his son, but he did not know the mother of his son are the basis to conclude that the petitioner had solemnized the second marriage with Smt. Bhadru Devi.

¶26

After receipt of the enquiry report by the

¶27

Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner was supplied the same and thereafter, vide office order dated 29.04.2008 (Annexure P-8), the Disciplinary Authority had imposed major penalty under Rule 11(vi) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and reverted the petitioner to the lower post of Veterinary Pharmacist in the pay scale of ₹4400-7000/- with immediate effect and there will be bar to his promotion to the higher post of Animal Husbandry Assistant and further he will be junior most in the final seniority list of Veterinary Pharmacists with immediate effect and will draw minimum pay in the time scale of the post of Veterinary

¶28

¶29

Pharmacist.

¶30

The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the order of

¶31

penalty dated 29.04.2008 had preferred an appeal which was rejected on 04.12.2008 (Annexure P-9) and the revision petition was thereafter dismissed.

¶32

The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the said orders had preferred the writ petition before this Court bearing CWP No. 3490 of 2012, titled, Purna Nand Sharma versus State of H.P. and others . This Court had disposed the writ petition on 28.02.2013 directing the respondents to hear the petitioner and dispose of the matter on or before 31.03.2013.

¶33

Thereafter the petitioner was heard on 12.03.2013 and vide office order dated 29.03.2013 (Annexure P-10), respondent No.1 had disposed of the revision petition holding therein that there was no major change in the facts of the case. However, the penalty debarring the petitioner from promotion, in addition to being reduced to starting point of the lower post, is set aside.

¶34

¶35

The petitioner has averred in the writ petition that

¶36

the charges against him were not proved and further he was not afforded with an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant and other witnesses. The petitioner was summoned by respondent No.3 on 08.05.2007 for recording his statement. The charge-sheet itself is vague, ambiguous, indefinite and incomplete. The Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority have been biased against him throughout the enquiry and since the petitioner has not been afforded proper opportunity to meet with the allegations affecting his valuable rights to defend himself, the enquiry being illegal and unconstitutional be quashed.

¶37

It has further been averred that the Enquiry Officer himself had prepared the statement dated 08.05.2007 (Annexure P-4) and such statement cannot be held to be legal. Further the respondents had failed to appreciate the circumstances that after 23-24 years of marriage, all of sudden a complaint was filed by the wife of the petitioner that the

¶38

¶39

petitioner is not looking after the family and the petitioner had contracted second marriage.

¶40

The respondents filed reply to the petition and averred that the petitioner was found guilty of contracting remarriage in contravention of Rule 21 of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and the respondent-Authority had rightly imposed the major penalty vide order dated 29.04.2008. The petitioner was afforded an opportunity for personal hearing on 12.03.2013 and, therefore, the action does not require any interference by this Court.

¶41

The petitioner though filed rejoinder to the reply, but simply denied the contents made in the reply.

¶42

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully.

¶43

It is not in dispute that the revision petition preferred by the petitioner was disposed of on 29.03.2013. The petitioner has not laid challenge to the said order, whereby the penalty imposed upon him debarring him from promotion, in

¶44

¶45

relation to being reduced to starting point of lower post was modified. Since the order under challenge passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 29.04.2008 and 04.12.2008 have been merged in the final order dated 29.03.2013, until and unless the said order was questioned, the petitioner could not have been granted any relief.

¶46

The petitioner though raised many points in the writ petition, but the learned counsel could not support the same by highlighting any violation of the provisions of law not having followed during the course of enquiry. The petitioner has not impleaded the Enquiry Officer by name, who had submitted the enquiry report and thus the allegations of malafide cannot be gone into and further the same have not been substantiated.

¶47

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande and another versus State of Maharashtra and anothe r, AIR 1965 SC 1564 , Kanwal Ram and others versus The Himachal Pradesh Administration, AIR 1966

¶48

¶49

SC 614 and Smt. Priya Bala Ghosh versus Suresh Chandra Ghosh , AIR 1971 SC 1153 and strenuously argued that the marriage has to be proved and since in the present case the marriage has not been proved, the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are unsustainable in law. All these judgments have been delivered while deciding the criminal cases against the accused. It is settled law that in criminal cases the guilt has

¶50

to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, whereas in the enquiry proceedings, the proof is not as that required in the criminal case. Reference in this regard is made to the judgment of the

¶51

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony versus Bharat

¶52

Gold Mines Limited and another , (1999) 3 SCC 679. The relevant

¶53

paras of the judgment are reproduced hereunder:

¶54

“13. As we shall presently see, there is a consensus of judicial opinion amongst the High Courts whose decisions we do not intend to refer to in this case, and the various pronouncements of this Court, which shall be copiously referred to, on the basic principle that proceedings in a criminal case and the departmental proceedings can proceed simultaneously with a little exception. As we understand, the basis for this proposition is that proceedings in a criminal case and the departmental proceedings operate in proceedings,

¶55

¶56

where a charge relating to misconduct is being investigated, the factors operating in the mind of the disciplinary authority may be many such as enforcement of discipline or to investigate the level of integrity of the delinquent or the other staff, the standard of proof required in those proceedings is also different than that required in a criminal case. While in the departmental proceedings the standard of proof is one of preponderance of the probabilities, in a criminal case, the charge has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The little exception may be where the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings is common without there being a variance.

¶57

The findings in the enquiry are based on the principle of preponderance of probabilities. In the present case, the Enquiry Officer had returned positive findings that the petitioner had solemnized the second marriage during subsistence of first marriage. This conclusion has been drawn on the basis of the statement of the petitioner who admitted

¶58

that Amit is his son, but he does not know his mother. First wife of the petitioner has deposed that Amit is not her son. Not only this there is another son namely Aman, who too was born out of

¶59

¶60

the wedlock of the petitioner with second wife Bhadru Devi.

¶61

The other grounds that the charge-sheet is vague,

¶62

no proper opportunity given to the petitioner and enquiry is illegal, are also not supported by any tangible material placed on record.

¶63

This Court while interfering with the order of Disciplinary Authority cannot go into the evidence and the facts recorded in the enquiry report.

¶64

Admittedly, in the present case, the Enquiry Officer had returned the findings that the petitioner had contracted second marriage during the subsistence of first marriage. The Disciplinary Authority on the basis of the findings returned by the Enquiry Officer had imposed the penalty which was later on modified by the revisional authority and the said order has not been questioned by the petitioner, though placed on record.

¶65

The scope of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the penalty is very limited.

¶66

This Court can quash the order of penalty only in case there is

¶67

¶68

flagrant violation of the procedure either adopted by the Enquiry Officer or by the Disciplinary Authority. In the present case, the Enquiry Officer had not exonerated the petitioner and thus, the Disciplinary Authority was not supposed to assign separate reasons while imposing the penalty.

¶69

As already noticed above, the Enquiry Officer returned positive findings that the petitioner had contracted the second marriage during subsistence of first marriage and this Court cannot sit as an Appellate Court to alter the said findings, especially when no material has been placed on record to show that the said findings are perverse and not based on the material collected during the enquiry.

¶70

It is now settled by catena of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the Disciplinary Authority is not required to assign reasons, if the Enquiry Officer has returned the findings that the charges are proved.

¶71

A reference in this regard is made to the judgment

¶72

in Boloram Bordoloi versus Lakhimi Gaolia Bank and others ,

¶73

¶74

(2021) 3 SCC 806 and relevant para is reproduced hereunder:

¶75

“11. We are of the view that the judgment of this Court in ECIL is not helpful to the case of the appellant. Further, it is well settled that if the disciplinary authority accepts the fndings recorded byi the enquiry officer and passes an order, no detailed reasons are required to be recorded in the order imposing punishment. The punishment is imposed based on the findings recorded in the enquiry report, as such, no further elaborate reasons are required to be given by the disciplinary authority. As the departmental appeal was considered by the Board of Directors in the meeting held on 10-12-2005, the Board's decision is communicated vide order dated 21-12-2005 in Ref. No. LGB/I&V/Appeal/31/02/200506. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the orders impugned are devoid of reasons.‘’

¶76

The scope of interference by this Court under Article

¶77

226 of the Constitution of India is also very limited as propounded by a three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh and others versus S. Sree Rama Rao , AIR 1963 SC 1723 . It has clearly laid down that this Court is not constituted in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution a Court of appeal over the decision of the

¶78

¶79

authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant and further review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. Relevant paragraph

¶80

whereof reads as under:-

¶81

“7. There is no warrant for the view expressed by the High Court that in considering whether a public officer is guilty of the misconduct charged against him, the rule followed in criminal trials that an offence is not established unless proved by evidence beyond reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of the Court, must be applied, and if that rule be not applied, the High Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is competent to declare the order of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry invalid. The High Court is not constituted in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution a Court of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant: it is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf, and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. Where there is some the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and evidence, which the authority entrusted with which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court in a petition for a writ under Article 226 to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. The High Court may undoubtedly interfere where the departmental authorities have held the proceedings against the delinquent in a

¶82

¶83

manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair decision by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and the merits of the case or by allowing themselves to be influenced by irrelevant considerations or where the conclusion on the very face of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at that conclusion, or on similar grounds. But the departmental authorities are, if the enquiry is otherwise properly held, the sole judges of facts and if there be some legal evidence on which their findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in a proceeding for a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution. ‘ ’

¶84

The petitioner has not challenged the order dated 29.03.2013 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Revisional Authority, whereby the penalty initially imposed upon him by the Disciplinary Authority has been modified. Thus, once the petitioner has accepted the penalty modified by the Revisional Authority, this Court, while exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot quash the said order, especially when the petitioner himself has placed on record the said order as Annexure P-10, which was passed in sequel to the

¶85

¶86

directions given by this Court.

¶87

The petitioner cannot be said to be naive person

¶88

and further once he had already approached this Court, he knows the intricacies of law.

¶89

In view of the discussion made hereinabove, I do

¶90

not find any merit in the petition. The orders passed by the authorities below do not suffer from any illegality or perversity inasmuch as the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is as per his misconduct and the penalty imposed cannot be said to

¶91

be disproportionate to the charges framed against him. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no orders as to cost.

¶92

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand

¶93

disposed of.

¶94

2 nd April , 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (ankit) Judge

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Appeal-rejection order dated 04.12.2008 (Annexure P-9) passed by Pr. Secretary (AH), Government of H.P. (Respondent No.1) and major-penalty order dated 29.04.2008 (Annexure P-8) passed by Respondent No.2 (Disciplinary Authority); relief clauses also target the enquiry report dated 27.06.2007 and the charge sheet dated 01.11.2006.¶12
Pr. Secretary (AH), Government of H.P. (Respondent No.1); Respondent No.2 (Disciplinary Authority) · 29.04.2008 and 04.12.2008
Prior proceeding
Charge-sheet dated 01.11.2006 (Annexure P-2) issued to petitioner, then Animal Husbandry Assistant, on two articles of charges: failure to maintain family (contrary to CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964) and contracted remarriage contrary to Rule 21 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.¶18
Prior proceeding
Regular enquiry conducted after petitioner's reply denying charges; Enquiry Officer concluded petitioner had solemnized second marriage with Smt. Bhadru Devi on basis of his partial confession regarding son Amit and the Pariwar Register entry.¶25
Prior proceeding
Disciplinary Authority imposed major penalty under Rule 11(vi) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 vide office order dated 29.04.2008 (Annexure P-8): reversion to Veterinary Pharmacist in pay scale Rs.4400-7000, bar on promotion and junior-most placement in seniority list.¶27
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's appeal against penalty order rejected on 04.12.2008 (Annexure P-9); revision petition thereafter dismissed.¶31
Prior proceeding
Earlier writ petition CWP No. 3490 of 2012 (Purna Nand Sharma versus State of H.P. and others) disposed of by this Court on 28.02.2013, directing respondents to hear petitioner and dispose of matter by 31.03.2013.¶32
Prior proceeding
After hearing on 12.03.2013, Respondent No.1 disposed of revision petition vide office order dated 29.03.2013 (Annexure P-10), finding no major change in facts of the case.¶33
Prior proceeding
Revisional order dated 29.03.2013 set aside the penalty of debarment from promotion while retaining reduction to starting point of lower post; petitioner did not challenge this order.¶33

Purna Nand v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Purna Nand v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vidya Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Puran Chand Vs the State of Hp and Another

Suman Lata Vs the Vice Chancellor of Hp University and Others

Brij Lal Thakur Vs State of Hp and Others

Bikram Singh Vs State of Hp and Others

Balbir Singh Vs State of Hp and Others