CWPOA/7643/2020 on 12 October 2026

2026:HHC:45030

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWPOA No.7643

of 2020

Decided on

: 12

th October, 2026

____________________________________________________________________ Narinder Kumar Puri

...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents _____________________________________________________________________

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Mr. Shashi Kant Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Balvinder Singh Ballu, Deputy Advocate General. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral)

The petitioner by way of present petition has prayed for the following substantive relief:- “a. That the order of punishment of Removal from service under section 87(2)(1)(b) of H.P. Police Act 2007 vide order No. O.B. No.59(III) Endst. No. OASI/2018- 14616-20 dated 28-4-2018 Annexure A-3 by the Respondent No.3 may kindly be quashed and set aside with consequential benefits of reinstatement of the petitioner with all consequential benefits.”

2. The facts as emerge from the pleadings are that the petitioner was appointed as Constable with the respondent- State on 01.03.2006. Thereafter, he was transferred to District 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

Chamba on 30.10.2012 from 3rd I.R.Bn., Pandoh and he has now been removed from service, vide office order dated 28.04.2018 (Annexure A-3). As per the reply filed by the respondents, a regular departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner, vide office order dated 15.11.2017 for willful absence from duty, misbehaving with seniors/colleagues and tearing the official documents, which was conducted by an Enquiry Officer appointed in this regard. The Enquiry Officer had framed the charge against the petitioner, vide letter dated 17.11.2017 and the said chargesheet was served upon the petitioner personally by Constable Pawan Kumar No. 245, Police Station Sadar, Chamba, by delivering a copy thereof, which was duly signed by him.

3. It has further been averred in the reply that the petitioner neither informed his senior officer about his illness nor produced any medical certificate. The petitioner was also served with a reminder dated 28.12.2017 through Constable Khem Raj No.213, Police Station Sadar, Chamba, which was duly received by him.

4. It has also been averred that the petitioner had subsequently joined the enquiry and questioned the witnesses during cross-examination, but refused to sign the statements of the witnesses recorded by the Enquiry Officer. On receipt of the enquiry report by respondent No.3, the same was served upon the petitioner, vide office memo dated 05.03.2018, for filing his representation against the same. A reminder dated 26.03.2018 was also issued to him, but he did not submit any representation against the enquiry report. On the basis of the findings returned in the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer and also taking into account the previous service record of the petitioner, wherein he had willfully remained absent from duty w.e.f. 12.08.2012 to 22.08.2012 and during this period he was warned and thereafter also many penalties were imposed upon him, a show cause notice dated 04.04.2018 (Annexure R-4) was issued to the petitioner, to submit his reply within 10 days from the date of receipt of the communication, otherwise it will be presumed that he has nothing to submit.

5. On receipt of the show cause notice, the petitioner submitted his reply against the show cause notice, but he did not appear. Respondent No.3 being the Disciplinary Authority after considering the findings in the enquiry report and the past conduct of the petitioner imposed penalty of removal of his service vide office order dated 28.04.2018 (Annexure A-3).

6. After passing of the aforesaid order of penalty, the petitioner has directly approached this Court by way of present petition and it has been averred by him in the petition that he came to know about the enquiry only when he was served with the show cause notice dated 04.04.2018 (Annexure R-4) by respondent No.3, which he had duly replied to on 09.04.2018 (Annexure A-1).

7. Though the respondents filed reply to the petition, but have not taken an objection with respect to the alternative remedy to be availed by the petitioner. As per Rule 23 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, there is a provision of a statutory appeal against the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. However, in the present case, the petitioner has not availed the said remedy. No doubt, the respondents while filing reply to the writ petition has not raised the plea that the petitioner has alternative remedy of an appeal, but once the petitioner is having an alternative remedy, this Court instead of adjudicating upon the merits of the case, is directing him to avail the remedy of a statutory appeal and the Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition against the order of penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.

8. Consequently, the present petition is disposed of with the direction that in case an appeal is preferred by the petitioner against the order of penalty imposed upon him vide office order dated 28.04.2018 (Annexure A-3) before the competent authority within one month from today, the same shall be decided on merits and the limitation will not come in the way of the petitioner. The competent authority is directed to decide the appeal if preferred by the petitioner within three months after its receipt. No order as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

th October, 2026

( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (ankit) Judge