Disposed

Gaurav Verma v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC16 Sept 2026CWPOA/7210/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A constable filed a writ petition seeking to quash departmental inquiry orders and to defer the inquiry until criminal witnesses were examined. The petitioner subsequently stated he no longer wished to pursue the case, and the State did not oppose closure. The High Court closed the petition, vacated the interim stay, and disposed of all pending miscellaneous applications.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed; interim order dated 31.05.2016 vacated; all pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.

Gaurav Verma Vs State of Hp — Service and Employment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶2

CWPOA No.7210 of 2019 Decided on: 16.09.2026.

¶3

Gaurav Verma ....Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Himachal Pradesh State and Others.

¶6

....Respondents

¶7

Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge

¶8

1 Whether approved for reporting?

¶9

For the petitioner: Ms. Shikha Rajta, Advocate vice Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rahul Thakur, Deputy Advocate General.

¶10

Ranjan Sharma, Judge

¶11

Petitioner Gaurav Verma, Constable in the

¶12

Respondent-Department at the relevant time, has come up before this Court seeking the following relief(s):

¶13

(a) Quash the impugned orders dated 17.05.2016 [Annexure A-7] on any other order passed subsequent thereto being arbitrary, malafide and illegal:

¶14

(b) Direct the respondents not to hold departmental inquiry till al the witnesses in the criminal case are examined and proceed in inquiry further thereafter only after affording full opportunity to the applicant to de-

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

fend the same.”

¶18

2. Pleading in the case have been exchanged by the

¶19

parties.

¶20

3 . Even application for vacation of stay was filed in

¶21

2019 and the second application was filed on 2024.

¶22

4. Upon listing of the case today Ms. Shikha Rajta, on Instructions received from Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Original

¶23

Counsel, submits that due to subsequent events, the petitioner does not intend to continue with the present proceedings hereinafter and the proceedings may be given a closure. [ Statement taken on record].

¶24

5 . Prayer being innocuous, is not opposed to, but is

¶25

agreed to, by Learned State Counsel.

¶26

6 . In these circumstances, the instant petition is closed and the interim order dated 31.05.2016 is vacated.

¶27

7 . In aforesaid terms, the writ petition and all

¶28

pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

¶29

disposed of, accordingly.

¶30

(Ranjan Sharma) Judge

¶31

September, 16, 2026 (Anita)

Gaurav Verma v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaurav Verma v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases