Dalip Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:-

The issue involved in this petition is with regard to the validity of the disciplinary proceedings which have been initiated against the petitioner. In terms of Annexure P-1, major penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner by Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, vide order dated 29.8.2025, which order has been affirmed in appeal by Divisional Commissioner,Mandi.

The petitioner was serving as a Patwari at the time when departmental proceedings were initiated against him. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure P-2 and submitted that in terms of this notification, the Governor of Himachal Pradesh was pleased to declare worthy Divisional/District/Settlement cadre of all Naib Tehsildars, Kanungos and Patwaris of Revenue Department as State Cadre. Further, in terms of this notification, upon the change of Divisional/District/Settlement cadres to State Cadre, the Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary/Secretary-cum-Financial Commissioner (Revenue), to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, were to be the appointing and disciplinary authority in respect of Naib Tehsildars and Director, Land Records, Himachal Pradesh, was to be appointing and disciplinary authority in respect of Patwaris and Kanungos of the Revenue Department. Learned Counsel submitted that in the present case, as the petitioner was a Patwari, the appointing and disciplinary authority was to be the Director, Land Records, Himachal Pradesh and, therefore, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, by exercising the powers of a disciplinary authority, is not sustainable in law. He submitted that as the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is bad in law, the appellate order is also not sustainable on this ground.

On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General, by referring to the reply filed to the writ petition, submitted that though issuance of notification dated 22^nd February, 2025, is not in dispute, however, a clarification was issued by the Director, Land Records, Himachal Pradesh, dated 29^th October 2025, Annexure R-3/II, in which, it is mentioned that all service-related matters including service/disciplinary/departmental inquiry pertaining to Patwaris and Kanungos were to be dealt with at the level of the respective authorities in accordance with the provisions of the prevailing R&P Rules of Patwaris and Kanungos in vogue and that said arrangement shall continue to remain in force till the revised R&P Rules under the State Cadre are duly finalized and implemented by the Government in terms of Notification dated 22.02.2025. No other point was urged.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith, this Court is of the considered view that in the peculiar facts of the case, the impugned orders are not sustainable in law.

The conversion of Divisional/District/Settlement cadres of Naib Tehsildar/Kanungos and Patwaris as State Cadres was a conscious decision taken by the State Government and that too vide a notification issued in the name of the worthy Governor of Himachal Pradesh. Therefore, after the Divisional/District/ Settlement cadres stood converted as a State Cadre, obviously, the appointing and disciplinary authority(s) with respect to the officer(s)/official(s) mentioned in the notification now were to be as mentioned in the notification. There is no saving clause in the Notification with regard to ongoing departmental proceedings. The clarification which has been issued by the Director, Land Records, vide Annexure R-3/II, dated 29^th October, 2025, cannot come to the rescue of the respondents. This is for the reason that a communication addressed by Director, Land Records cannot clarify a notification that has been issued by the Additional Chief Secretary-cum-Financial Commissioner (Revenue), in the name of the Governor of Himachal Pradesh. In case any clarification of notification (Annexure P-2), had to be issued, then the same should have been issued in the same mode and manner, in which, notification dated 22^nd February, 2025 was issued and it ought to have been in continuation of notification dated 22^nd February, 2025. To the contrary, by a communication addressed by the Director, Land Records to the Divisional Commissioner, Division Mandi, the authority has been intimated that till new Recruitment and Promotion Rules are not framed, the old system be kept in vogue in terms of the old Recruitment and Promotion Rules as far as disciplinary proceedings, etc. are concerned.

The State Government at the time when it issued notification dated 22^nd February, 2025 should have been alive to the situation that there could have been departmental proceedings, etc. pending against the officer(s)/Official(s) and the notification obviously, would have effect upon the ongoing departmental proceedings, etc. The consequences of the issuance of notification should have been taken care of in this regard simultaneously at the time when the notification was issued. It appears that after the flaw in the notification, which failed to take into consideration this aspect of the matter, came to the notice of the authorities concerned, as a knee-jerk reaction, Annexure R-3/II, has been issued without understanding and appreciating that what was contained in notification dated 22^nd February, 2025 could not have been clarified by way of a simple communication. Respondents erred in not appreciating that Notification dated 22.02.2025 could have been clarified by way of a notification only and that too issued in the name of worthy Governor, by the Competent Authority. This not having been done, the clarification being relied upon by the State cannot save the impugned orders. As far as communication dated 16.05.2025 (Annexure R-3/1) is concerned, this Court is not making any observations qua the same as said communication is in personam qua the incumbent mentioned in it. Annexure P/11/Annexure R-3/II, is also held to be bad in law as it cannot supplement Notification dated 22.02.2025.

Accordingly, in the light of the above observations, the present petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 29.8.2025 (Annexure P-1) as well as order dated 30.12.2025 (Annexure P-3) are quashed. Letter dated 29.10.2025 (Annexure P-11) is also quashed and set aside. Consequences to ensue. However, respondents shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner departmentally in terms of notification Annexure P-2, dated 22.02.2025, in accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.