The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that an Executive Chairman of the State Legal Services Authority (SLSA) is legally permitted to delegate disciplinary powers to the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA).

The Court was considering a Writ Petition seeking to challenge the disciplinary proceedings initiated against an employee of the DLSA under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, as per the statement of the articles of charges issued as per Article-I and Article-II.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice GS Sandhawalia and Justice JIya Lal Bhardwaj observed, "The argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner that there is no power of delegation under the Act has been squarely met by the judgment of the Apex Court itself, which is referred above, that on account of the delegation, the superior officer can always give the authority to the subordinate officer to conduct proceedings."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate B.L. Soni, while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Shriyek Sharda.

Facts of the Case

Counsel for the Petitioner-Employee who is a Senior Assistant working with the District Legal Services Authority, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. submitted that he was appointed by the H.P. State Legal Services Authority, Kasumpti, Shimla on October 25, 2016 and was placed at the disposal of the Chairman (District Judge), DLSA, Mandi for reporting for duty. It was his case that having been appointed by the SLSA, disciplinary proceedings could not be initiated by the District and Sessions Judge, Mandi, not being the State Legal Services Authority under Section 6 of The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India and others vs. B.V. Gopinath (2014) to contend that the methodology as such which had been adopted by the appointing authority and giving the power at the district level was not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case.

The stand taken by SLSA was that the District Judge is the Chairman of the District Authority in terms of Section 9(2)(a) of the Act and the action was initiated in the capacity of the Chairman, DLSA. The appointing authority is the Member Secretary, SLSA acting as a Head of the Department in consultation with the Chief Justice. The action as such had been held to be justified.

Counsel for Respondent No.3, on the other hand, placed reliance upon a recent judgment of the Apex Court in State of Jharkhand and others vs. Rukma Kesh Mishra (2025).

Reasoning By Court

The Court held that once the record goes on to show that the Executive Chairman had delegated the power at the district level to the DLSA who is the District Judge and the Chairman as per Section 9 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, no fault as such can be found in the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings.

".....the authority having been delegated by the Executive Chairman, SLSA, we do not find that any prejudice as such has been caused to the petitioner who apart from the misconduct as such is also being charge-sheeted for misclassification of funds of Rs.41,50,000/- being shown in the State grant instead of NALSA grant and also holding back payments of the honorarium claim of mediators due to which action is sought to be taken against him.....", the Court held.

The Petition was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Om Prakash v. Hon’ble High Court of H.P. and Others (2025:HHC:36364)

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocates B.L. Soni, Nitin Soni

Respondent- Advocatea Shriyek Sharda, Arjun Lall

Click here to read/ download Order


Himachal Pradesh High CourtChief Justice GS Sandhawalia

Sheetal Joon