Devinder Singh v. State of H.P & Ors.

Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 5. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J Petitioner seeks quashing of Memorandum of Charge- Sheet dated 09.04.2024 (Annexure P-7) issued to him by the Disciplinary Authority-Chief Conservator of Forests (T) Forest Circle Rampur, H.P.; Order dated 20.12.2024 passed by the Disciplinary Authority whereby petitioner’s reply to the Charge-Sheet was found unsatisfactory; the order dated 27.06.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority-Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (HOFF), H.P. rejecting petitioner’s appeal against the order dated 20.12.2024; and the order dated 02.09.2025 passed by the Disciplinary Authority appointing inquiry officer to inquire into the articles of charges framed 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 ( 2025:HHC:39154 ) against the petitioner in the Memorandum of Charge-Sheet issued to him on 09.04.2024.

2. 2(i) Heard and considered the case file. A Memorandum of Charge-Sheet was issued to the petitioner on 09.04.2024 by respondent No.4-Chief Conservator of Forest (T), Forest Circle Rampur, H.P.(Disciplinary Authority), containing four Articles of Charges with brief description is as under: -

1. Article of Charge-I Dereliction of mandatory Govt. duties, failure to detect huge forest offence i.e. illegal mining/extraction of stone (2505m3) in Brow Beat.

2. Article of Charge-II Connivance with the offenders.

3. Article of Charge-III Negligence in performing duties caused loss to the State Exchequer to the tune of Rs.36,86,480/-.

4. Article of Charge-IV Non compliance of superior orders. 2(ii) Petitioner filed his reply to the Memorandum of Charge- Sheet on 12.04.2024. The Disciplinary Authority appointed Inquiry Officer as also the Presenting Officer on 01.05.2024. At this stage, petitioner instituted Devinder Singh Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.2. The said petition was disposed of with the observations that the 2 CWP No. 4526/2024 decided on 24.05.2024 3 ( 2025:HHC:39154 ) Disciplinary Authority had not at all considered the reply filed by the petitioner to the Charge-Sheet before appointing Inquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer; That procedure adopted by the Disciplinary Authority contravened the spirit of Rule 14(5)(a) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal), [CCS (CCA)], Rules, 1965 and was also in-violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, office order dated 01.05.2024 appointing Inquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer without considering petitioner’s reply to the Charge-Sheet was quashed and set aside. Respondents were directed to consider the reply filed by the petitioner to the Charge- Sheet and proceed further in the matter, in accordance with law. 2(iii) Pursuant to above, the Disciplinary Authority considered petitioner’s reply filed to the Charge-Sheet and vide office order dated 20.12.2024 found it to be un-satisfactory. This order was assailed by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority i.e. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (HOFF), H.P. The Appellate Authority, vide its detailed order, rejected the appeal on 27.06.2025 and directed the departmental proceeding its ultimate conclusion. Consequently, the Disciplinary Authority, vide order dated 02.09.2025, appointed one Sh. Hira Kumar Negi- Superintendent Grade-II O/o DFO Ani as Presenting Officer and Sh. Gurharsh Singh, IFS, DCF Rampur was appointed as Inquiry Officer. 4 ( 2025:HHC:39154 ) 2(iv) The Charge-Sheet dated 09.04.2024, orders dated

20.12.2024, 27.06.2025 and 02.09.2025 have been assailed by the petitioner in the instant petition.

3. Reliance for assailing the Charge-Sheet and above referred orders has been placed upon State of Punjab Vs. V.K. Khanna and Ors.3, relevant para of which, reads as under: - “16. Absence of malice has been the main thurst of submissions in support of the appeal and adaptation of a simple method of disciplinary inquiry is the key issue as urged by the appellants. Shri Khanna, respondent No.1, on the other hand contended that the entire set of facts if analysed in a proper perspective then and in that event gross violation of basic tenets by reason of malice ipso facto would be apparent enough to reach the same conclusion as has the High Court. Shri Khanna alleges that the issuance of the charge-sheet against him is the direct outcome of the reference of the two cases to the CBI and is overtly mala fide. It would thus be convenient to assess the facts pertaining to above- noted two cases at this juncture.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that false and vexatious charges have been levelled against the petitioner; The inquiry officer so appointed will also work under the influence of respondent No.6-the Divisional Forest Officer Ani; and respondents are proceedings in the matter with malice towards the petitioner.

4. Shyam Lal Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.4 was case where challenge was laid to Memorandum of Charge-Sheet. After taking 3 (2001) 2 SCC 330 4 CWPOA No. 5991/2020 decided on 10.08.2021 5 ( 2025:HHC:39154 ) note of Union of India & Anr. Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana5, Secretary Ministry of Defence and others Vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha6 and Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors Vs. A. Masilamani7, Hon’ble Division Bench deduced following principles: - "10. The principle deducible from the aforesaid decision: Ordinarily writ does not i) notice/charge memo; lie against show cause ii) entertaining writ petition against show cause notice/charge memo is dehors the limits of judicial review/exceeds the power of judicial review at the threshold; iii) issuance of show cause notice/charge memo, does not adversely affect/infringe the rights of the employee; does not amount to an adverse order; normally a charge sheet is not quashed prior to the iv) conducting of the enquiry on the ground that the facts stated in the charge are erroneous as determination of correctness or truth of the charge is the function of the disciplinary authority. It would be premature to deal with the issues; v) in only from rare and exceptional cases, if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason, if it is reason, if it is wholly illegal, court can exercise of judicial review at the stage of show cause notice/charge memo; notice/charge memo; discretion under article 226 should not ordinarily be vi) exercised to quash charge sheet/show cause notice.” The instant is a case, where the inquiry against the petitioner on the Charge-Sheet issued to him is yet to proceed. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner does not expect a fair inquiry as respondent No.6 is prejudiced against him and will influence the inquiry proceedings. While the apprehension of