Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 642 (HP)

Ashwani Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-04-04

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. 1. Petitioner herein, is aggrieved by the action of Scrutiny Committee, constituted by Deputy Commissioner, Kangra, for the regularization of contractual appointees, wherein though his name along with other eligible persons was considered for regularization, after completion of requisite period, but he has been left out from regularization on account of pendency of FIR. On 09.05.2016, petitioner was appointed as Patwari on contract basis, however, in 2017, a complaint came to be filed against him, levelling therein allegations of bribe for providing a copy of Jamabandi. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, Vigilance Department registered an FIR No. 4 of 2017, dated 18.11.2017, under Sections 7 and 13(2) of prevention and corruption Act, at Police Station State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau Dharamshala, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. Though petitioner herein was arrested in the aforesaid case, but subsequently he was released on bail by the learned Special Judge, Dharamshala, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. Services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 29.11.2017. 2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid termination order, petitioner herein preferred OA(D) No. 372 of 2017 before the erstwhile HP State Administrative Tribunal, which came to be disposed of on 12.04.2018. Vide aforesaid order, erstwhile HP Administrative Tribunal set aside the termination order on the ground that impugned termination of the petitioner was penal in nature and had been passed without conducting any inquiry. Though in terms of aforesaid order, petitioner was reinstated, but departmental proceedings came to be initiated against him. On 06.07.2018, petitioner again joined the services. In the year 2019, Deputy Commissioner, Kangra, constituted Scrutiny Committee under the chairmanship of Mr.Devi Chand Thakur, District Revenue Officer, Kangra at Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh, to scrutinize the documents of contractual appointees for the regularization. Though in terms of aforesaid order, petitioner was reinstated, but departmental proceedings came to be initiated against him. On 06.07.2018, petitioner again joined the services. In the year 2019, Deputy Commissioner, Kangra, constituted Scrutiny Committee under the chairmanship of Mr.Devi Chand Thakur, District Revenue Officer, Kangra at Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh, to scrutinize the documents of contractual appointees for the regularization. Though Scrutiny Committee in its meeting held on 28.03.2019 (Annexure R-6), recommended the name of the petitioner subject to outcome of criminal case pending against him, but fact remains that till date he has not been regularized and as such, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for the following main relief:- “(i) That the impugned action of the respondent of not regularizing the services of the petitioner from the due date i.e. 2019 when he has completed three years as per the policy of regularization of employees applicable in Himachal Pradesh, may kindly be quashed and set aside with a direction to the respondents to regularized his service from due date with all consequential benefits like arrears of pay, seniority and further promotion etc.” 3. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Virender Thakur, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that regularization of the petitioner cannot be delayed on account of pendency of criminal as well as disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, rather order of regularization could have been passed by the authorities subject to outcome of criminal proceedings, which was otherwise recommended by the Committee itself. To support his aforesaid arguments, Mr. Thakur, invited attention of this Court to judgment dated 26.09.2023 passed by this Court in CWP No. 4719 of 2022 titled as Vinod Kumar Pal Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., wherein, under similar facts & circumstances, this Court directed the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner in the aforesaid case from the date he completed the requisite service along with consequential benefits subject to outcome of the criminal proceedings initiated against him. 4. To the contrary, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while supporting the impugned action of respondents inasmuch as not regularizing the petitioner pursuant to the recommendation made by the Scrutiny Committee, vehemently argued that till the time criminal as well as disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner are not completed, he cannot be regularized. 4. To the contrary, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while supporting the impugned action of respondents inasmuch as not regularizing the petitioner pursuant to the recommendation made by the Scrutiny Committee, vehemently argued that till the time criminal as well as disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner are not completed, he cannot be regularized. He further submitted that allegations/charges against the petitioner are very serious in nature. While making this Court peruse recommendation made by the Scrutiny Committee (Annexure R-6), Mr. Kahol, argued that even Committee, while recommending the name of the petitioner, categorically observed that regularization shall be granted to the person from the due date, after his being exonerated from the criminal/departmental proceedings. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that petitioner, who had joined the respondents-department on 09.05.2016, was terminated on 29.11.2017 on account of registration of criminal case against him. However, pursuant to order dated 12.04.2018 passed by erstwhile HP State Administrative Tribunal, he was again reinstated and since then, has been continuously serving in the department. Pursuant to Policy of Regularization framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Deputy Commissioner, Kangra, to regularize the services of person serving on contract basis constituted a Committee under the chairmanship of District Revenue Officer, District Kangra at Dharamshala, who after having found that petitioner has completed requisite number of years, recommended his name for regularization (Annexure R-6) along with other eligible candidates, but yet he was not regularized on account of pendency of criminal/disciplinary proceedings against him. Though there cannot be any dispute with regard to pendency of criminal/disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, but since considerable time is likely to be consumed in conclusion of criminal/disciplinary proceedings, petitioner herein, who is otherwise eligible to be regularized, cannot be made to suffer for an indefinite period. 6. Leaving everything aside, this Court, having perused Policy of Regularization framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, is persuaded to agree with Mr. Virender Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, that there is no bar, if any, for regularization of the petitioner on account of pendency of criminal/disciplinary proceedings against him. During proceedings, Mr. 6. Leaving everything aside, this Court, having perused Policy of Regularization framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, is persuaded to agree with Mr. Virender Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, that there is no bar, if any, for regularization of the petitioner on account of pendency of criminal/disciplinary proceedings against him. During proceedings, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, was unable to point out any provision in the policy of regularization suggestive of the fact that person, against whom, a criminal case stands registered, shall not be considered for regularization. Otherwise also, lodging of FIR may not be sufficient to deny the benefit of regularization, till the time employee is not held guilty in criminal proceedings initiated against him/her, he/she is deemed to be innocent. In similar facts and circumstances, this Court in Vinod Kumar (supra)issued direction to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner in that case. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, has not been able to dispute that mandate contained in the afore judgement passed by this Court stands implemented. If it is so, similar treatment must be given to the petitioner. 7. Consequently, in view of above, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly, the same is allowed. Respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioner forthwith from the date he completed requisite service of three years i.e. 31.03.2019, pursuant to recommendation made by the Scrutiny Committee, in its meeting held on 28.03.2019 (Annexure R-6), but such order shall be subject to outcome of criminal/disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, as detailed hereinabove. Since petitioner has been fighting for his rightful claim for quite long, this Court hopes and trusts that needful in terms of the instant order shall be done expeditiously within a period of four weeks. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.