IN T Shingar Ch State of Pu 2) Mandhir S State of Pu CORAM: Present: KULDEEP 1) these writ common is both these facility of 1999.       -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA CWP Rese Pron Uplo gar Chand Versus of Punjab and others dhir Singh Grewal Versus of Punjab and others AM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KU Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Senior Mr. Brijesh Khosla, Advocat for the petitioners. Ms. Pratibha Bali, Assistant **** DEEP TIWARI, J. Learned counsel for the pa writ petitions are amenable to be mon issue arises for consideration these writ petitions are taken up ty of reference, facts are being c PUNJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH CWP-7566-1999(O&M) Reserved on: 12.01.2026 Pronounced on: 06.04.2026 Uploaded on: 06.04.2026 ….Petitioner ….Respondents CWP-9993-1999 (O&M) ….Petitioners ….Respondents KULDEEP TIWARI Senior Advocate, with vocate, istant Advocate General, Punjab. he parties are ad idem that both to be decided together, since a ration of this Court. Accordingly, en up together. However, for a ing culled out from CWP-7566- jab. both ce a gly, or a - AMIT KUMAR 2026.04.06 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

 2) under Arti dated 17 dismissed ARGUMEN 3) aforesaid around thr 4) legality, be submitted enquiry re However, objections mechanica dismissal quasi-judic reasons, is submit tha functions In this reg the Hon’bl Vs. Sh. M Union of I 836; and       -2- The petitioner, by way of r Article 226 of the Constitution d 17/20.05.1999 (Annexure P issed from service. UMENTS In an endeavour to que said order, learned Senior counsel nd three core issues. Firstly, the dismissal order c being non-speaking and cryptic itted that admittedly, the petition iry report, to which, he also ever, authorities did not opt to ctions, and thus, passed the hanical and perfunctory manner. issal order, after conducting an judicial function. Accordingly, an ons, is liable to be out-rightly set as that once the authority is dis tions, it is obliged to record reason is regard, he placed reliance upon Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Kr h. Masood Ahmed Khan and O of India Vs. Mohan Lal Capoor and S.N.Mukherjee Vs. Union o ay of instant writ petition, filed ution of India, assails the order e P-8), vide which, he was question the validity of the unsel structured his submissions rder cannot withstand the test of cryptic. Elaborating the issue, he etitioner was furnished with the also filed detailed objections. to address any of the said the impugned order in most anner. Further, passing of the enquiry, indeed, leads to a ly, any order, which is bereft of set aside. He laid much thrust to is discharging the quasi-judicial easons in support of its decision. upon the decisions rendered by s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. nd Others, 2010 (9) SCC 496; poor and others, 1973 (2) SCC n of India, 1990 (4) SCC 594, filed rder was the ions st of he the ons. said ost the to a ft of st to ial . d by td. ; CC , AMIT KUMAR 2026.04.06 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

 as well as and anot Dr. H.S. A on 09.09.1 5) approval o the petition such appr him from circumstan hampered India and the Hon’bl Union Pu Disciplinar same to t violation o verdicts Khariwal and State 2019, dec 6) the decisi Court in State of P       -3- ell as by this Court in Som Nath G nother (CWP-19050-1996, dec .S. Aneja Vs. State of Punjab (C .09.1999). Secondly, the Punishing A oval of the Punjab Public Service C etitioner from service, which was g approval/report was not supplied from submitting objections/res mstances, the petitioner’s right to pered. On this aspect, he referred and others Vs. S.K.Kapoor, (2 Hon’ble Supreme Court has held n Public Service Commission iplinary Authority, it is of paramoun to the employee concerned, el tion of principles of natural justic of the Division Benches wal Vs. State of Punjab and an tate of Punjab and others Vs. decided on 20.2.2019). Adverting to the third issue decision dated 29.05.1996, rende rt in CWP-3050-1996 (M/s Daljit S of Punjab and others), which w th Gandhi Vs. State of Punjab decided on 19.12.1996); and ab (CWP-11130-1999, decided hing Authority had sought prior rvice Commission for dismissal of was granted. However, a copy of pplied to the petitioner, depriving ns/response thereto. In such ight to defend has been acutely erred to the decision in Union of r, (2011) 4 SCC 589, wherein, held that in case, report of the ssion is relied upon by the amount importance to supply the else it would tantamount to justice. He further relied upon of this Court in Dr. Vijay d another, 2013 (4) SCT 302, Vs. G.S. Sidhu (LPA No. 383- issue, he took this Court through rendered by a Division of this ljit Singh and Brother Vs. The ich was filed by none other than jab nd ed prior al of y of iving uch tely of , the the the t to pon jay , - ugh this he than AMIT KUMAR 2026.04.06 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

 the contrac lis, for rele account o allowed, a the contra explained the charg demolishe such alleg set aside petitioner b 7) opposing asserted th assigned i reasons, in placed reli State of O and High Patil, 2000 8) the Const Service Co observatio case, the       -4- ontractor, who had executed the w or release of payment, which was unt of excess payment. Consequ ed, and the amount was directed contractor. Referring to the factua ained above, he averred that the ba charges were levelled against olished. As an upshot, further pro allegations also lose legal sanctity aside the dismissal order, and to ioner by reinstating him in service. Per contra, learned State sing the arguments advanced o rted that, if the Disciplinary Authori ned in the enquiry report, it is not ons, in support of its decision. To ed reliance on the decisions of the of Orrisa Vs.Bidyabhushan Mo igh Court of Judicature at Bo 2000 (1) SCC 416. Further, she argued that in Constitution of India, consultatio ice Commission is directory in na rvations made in S.K. Kapoor (su the Disciplinary Authority seeks the work involved in the present h was alleged to be withheld on nsequently, the writ petition was ected to be released in favour of factual aspect of the matter, as the basic foundation, upon which ainst the petitioner, has been er proceedings emanating from nctity, necessitating this Court to nd to restore the dignity of the vice. tate counsel, while vociferously ed on behalf of the petitioner, uthority concurs with the reasons is not required to record detailed . To substantiate her plea, she of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohapatra, AIR 1963 SC 779; t Bombay Vs. Shashikant S. in terms of Article 320(3)(c) of ultation with the Punjab Public in nature. While referring to the r (supra), she submitted that in seeks and relies on the advice sent d on was r of as hich een from rt to the usly ner, ons iled she rt in ; S. ) of ublic the in vice AMIT KUMAR 2026.04.06 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

 solicited against th preceding advice is f instant cas made the such a situ any such petitioner. that the no bearing of misapp Further, measurem pedestal, measurem FACTUAL 9) advanced undisputed current sta 10) Executive Septembe constructio       -5- ited from the Public Service Comm nst the delinquent employee, the eding the final decision. Precisely ce is foundation of the guilt and pu nt case, though the advice was so e the foundational basis for pass a situation, the authority concerne such necessity to supply a copy ioner. While putting her submissio decision in M/s Daljit Singh a earing on the case of the petitioner isappropriation or embezzlemen er, neither he was signatory surement books, but the petitioner stal, being the main culprit, surements and sanctioned the bills TUAL MATRIX Before dealing with th nced on behalf of the parties, sputed sequence of events, whi nt stage, shall be imperative. The petitioner-Shingar C utive Engineer, Central Works D ember, 1994, was manning t truction of an approach road to H ommission, as decisive material the same must be supplied, cisely, it is essential, only if the nd punishment. However, in the as sought, but the same was not passing the dismissal order. In cerned was not constrained with copy of the advise/report to the missions at rest, she contended gh and Brothers (supra), has itioner, as there was no allegation lement against the contractor. atory to the bills nor to the ioner herein stands on a different who had undertaken the e bills. the extensive contentions rties, a concise recital of the , which led the parties to the ar Chand, while posted as rks Division, Hoshiarpur, w.e.f. the duties of In-charge of d to High Level Bridge over the erial lied, the the not r. In with the ded has tion ctor. the rent the ions the the as .e.f. of the AMIT KUMAR 2026.04.06 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

 Beas Rive project and In this wa bills from dissatisfied (responde through a submitted Rs.1,22,22 also endo complaint culminated (petitioners dated 07.1 was serve charges:       -6- iver, near Sri Hargobindpur. T ct and sanction the pending bills is way, he accorded approval to from 11th to 16th, amounting of tisfied with the work, the ondent No.2), later on, got m gh a Junior Engineer (respond itted a measurement report tha ,22,22,602/-, up to the 16th bill, endorsed by three Sub Divisiona plaint, in this regard, was made to t inated into suspension of Shinga tioners), along with Iqbal Singh, J d 07.12.1995. Thereafter, a charg served upon the petitioner, emb ges:- “Charge No.1 During the work you made payment for of the quantity at the site th Rs.1,22,22,602/- to M/s Daljit are responsible. Charge No. 2. That on th you defrauded the Govt. of a in collusion with other office Brothers contractor. Charge No.3. It was you work at site before making pa make for same by safegua To take stock of the ongoing bills was also a part of the task. al to the payment of 06 running g of Rs.1.67 crores. However, the Superintending Engineer got measurements re-checked spondent No.3). Eventually, he rt that an excess payment of bill, had been made, which was isional Engineers. As a result, a e to the higher authorities, which hingar Chand and M.S. Grewal ngh, Junior Engineer, vide order charge-sheet dated 04.03.1996, embodying the following four the course of execution of the for quantities which were excess te this cause excess payment of aljit Singh Brothers for which you n the execution of the said work of an amount of Rs.1,22,22,602/- fficers and M/s Daljit Singh and your duty to inspect/check the g payments for the same; and to guarding Govt. interest. By not oing . interest. By not oing . ning ver, neer ked he t of was lt, a hich ewal rder 996, four the ss of ou ork - nd the to not AMIT KUMAR 2026.04.06 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

 11) perusal of revolve a sanctioned the petition the charge and hence 12) Engineer, 29.01.1997 G.S.Mann Ferozepur was conc parties. As that the Rs.1,13,84 charges concerned Presenting proved ag       -7- doing so you have caused w of your duty for which you are Charge No.4. That you progress in excess of actual p an attempt to misled the Seni personally responsible for rep It is necessary to pause he sal of the aforesaid charges vivid lve around the excess paymen tioned by the petitioner. Resumin etitioner, within the stipulated time charge-sheet, which did not find f hence, declared unsatisfactory. While flowing with the proc neer, was appointed as Inquiry 1.1997. However, subsequently, Mann, Superintending Enginee zepur, vide order dated 26.06.199 concluded, after affording oppo As regards the charge No.1, the delinquent had made ,13,84,947/- in the 17th running bill. No.2 and 3, also stood proved erned, it was not discussed, b enting Officer. Hence, per the rep ed against the petitioner. Thereaf d with serious lapse in discharge are responsible. you manipulated submission of ual progress at the site and made enior Officers in this way you are r reporting false progress.” se here to pen down that a bare vividly indicates that the same yment of Rs.1,22,22,602/-, as suming the factual background, d timeframe, furnished a reply to find favour with the authorities, procedure, M.S. Guram, Chief quiry Officer, vide order dated ently, he was replaced with ngineer, Construction Circle, 6.1997. Thereupon, the enquiry opportunity of hearing to the o.1, the Enquiry Officer opined de an excess payment of g bill. Likewise, he observed that proved. So far as charge No.4 is ed, being not pressed by the e report, the charges were duly hereafter, a copy of the enquiry ge of de re bare ame as und, ly to ities, hief ated with rcle, uiry the ined of that .4 is the duly uiry AMIT KUMAR 2026.04.06 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

 report was response/ order cam from serv beseechin ANALYSIS 13) employee Notably, it preceded indiscipline report; ana golden rule hold an en legality of followed b safeguard conditions Likewise, t validity of respective in pursuan quasi-judic 14) Court can       -8- rt was supplied to the petitioner, onse/objections on 13.05.1998. r came into existence, resulting into service. That is how, the petiti eching indulgence of this Court. LYSIS Ex facie, the exercise of loyee from service is ordinarily a , it assumes the character of eded by an enquiry into cipline/misconduct; dismissal orde analysis of objections/response en rule of Audi Alteram Partem. On an enquiry, it is under the statutor lity of the charge-sheet, as to wed by the Enquiry Officer, and ad guard provided under the service r itions of the delinquent employ wise, the Disciplinary Authority is a of the enquiry report and verac ective parties. Therefore, any orde rsuance of such exercise of pow judicial function. In the backdrop of the abo rt can safely conclude that the , to which, he submitted the 998. Ultimately, the impugned ng into dismissal of the petitioner petitioner is before this Court e of powers to terminate an arily an administrative function. r of quasi-judicial function, if it is into the allegations of l order is founded on the enquiry onse; and strict adherence of the Once the authority decides to atutory obligation to examine the to whether, due procedure is and adherence to the procedural rvice rules, governing the service mployee, is ensured or not? is also required to assess the veracity of evidence led by the y order, which has been passed f powers, certainly assumes the e abovesaid legal position, this the impugned dismissal order the ned oner ourt an tion. it is of uiry f the s to the e is ural vice not? the the sed the this rder AMIT KUMAR 2026.04.06 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

 stems out subjected matter at stood duly as already Officer. T petitioner, objections impugned as submit impugned and on the the enquiry 15) nexus bet absence o considered observatio Capoor (s       -9- s out of the quasi-judicial functio ected to the rigors of judicial sc er at hand, the Enquiry Officer he duly proved against the delinque lready observed above, was not er. Thereafter, the enquiry repo ioner, affording him an opp ctions/response, as also a persona gned dismissal order was passed, ubmitted by the petitioner, was gned order carries description of on the basis thereof, the Punishin nquiry report. Needless to assert that the s between the facts and the co nce of any reasons, the order u idered to be a speaking orde rvations made by the Hon’ble Sup or (supra), are required to be refe “In the context of th aggrieved persons, as mem are entitled to just and reaso protections conferred upon the Constitution, which are their service, it was incumben to have stated reasons in a how the record of each office to records of others who wer unction, and it is required to be ial scrutiny, accordingly. In the cer held that first three charges linquent, and the fourth charge, not pressed by the Presenting report was served upon the opportunity to file written ersonal hearing. Whereupon, the ssed, but none of the objections, was dealt with. Evidently, the ion of the factual narration only, nishing Authority concurred with he reasons always act as a e conclusion arrived at. In the rder under challenge cannot be order. In this regard, the le Supreme Court in Mohan Lal e referred to:- f the effect upon the rights of embers of a public service who asonable treatment, by reason of on them by Articles14 and 16 of re available to them throughout bent on the Selection Committee n a manner which would disclose fficer superseded stood in relation were to be preferred, particularly be the rges rge, ting the itten , the ons, the nly, with as a the t be the Lal of ho of of out tee se ion rly AMIT KUMAR 2026.04.06 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

 16) Capoor (s Kranti As vitality of been held trend man administra       -10- as this is practically the only against possible injustice a selections. If that had been d of officers considered by the have been correlated to the c are the links 'between the conclusions are based and disclose how the mind is app decision whether it is purely a They should reveal a ration considered and the conclusio can opinions or decisions manifestly just and reasona enough to say that preferenc certain kind of process was g Committee. This is all that reasons amounts to. We, mandatory provisions of Regu with. We think that relian respondents on two decision effect of noncompliance with These were: Associated Elec Ltd. Calcutta vs. Its Work COURT 284 and the Collec Keshav Prasad Goenka & O While applying the ratio or (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Associates Pvt. Ltd. (supra), ty of existence of reasons, in sup held that in Indian set up, there mandating that reasons be assig inistrative decisions, particularly, w only remaining visible safeguard e and arbitrariness in making en done, facts on service records the Selection Committee would he conclusions reached. Reasons the materials on which certain nd the actual conclusions. They applied to the subject matter for a ely administrative or quasi-judicial. ational nexus between the facts lusions reached. Only in this way ns recorded be shown to be sonable. We think that it is not rence should be given because a as gone through by the Selection that the Supposed statement of We, therefore, think that the egulation 5(5) were not complied eliance was rightly placed by sions of this Court relating to the with such mandatory provisions. Electrical Industries (India) Pvt. Workmen, AIR 1967 SUPREME ollector of Monghyr & Ors vs. & Ors, (1963) 1 SCR 98.” ratio laid down in Mohan Lal reme Court in its decision in M/s unequivocally, reinforces the in support of the orders. It has re exists a well settled judicial assigned to every order, even in arly, when such decisions affect rd ing rds uld ns ain ey r a ial. cts ay be not a ion of the ied by e ns. vt. E vs. Lal /s the has icial n in ffect AMIT KUMAR 2026.04.06 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

 anyone pr indispensa observing even by ad       -11- ne prejudicially. Further, reasons pensable a component of deci rving principles of natural justice b by administrative bodies:- “15. The necessity of authority in support of i consideration before this Co this Court recognized a so administrative orders and qua passage of time the distinctio and thinned out and virtually the judgment of this Court in Union of India and others re 17. The expression ‘sp by Lord Chancellor Earl Cairn The Lord Chancellor, while e Certiorari, referred to orders record and pointed out that an is a speaking order. (See 187 at 40 of the report). 51. Summarizing the holds: a. In India the judicial trend reasons, even in administrativ affect anyone prejudicially. b. A quasi-judicial authority m of its conclusions. c. Insistence on recording of wider principle of justice that it must also appear to be done d. Recording of reasons also on any possible arbitrary ex judicial or even administrative asons have virtually become as decision making process as tice by judicial, quasi-judicial and of giving reason by a body or f its decision came up for Court in several cases. Initially a sort of demarcation between quasi-judicial orders but with the ction between the two got blurred ally reached a vanishing point in rt in A.K. Kraipak and others vs. rs reported in AIR 1970 SC 150. ‘speaking order’ was first coined airns in a rather strange context. ile explaining the ambit of Writ of ers with errors on the face of the at an order with errors on its face, 1878-97 Vol. 4 Appeal Cases 30 the above discussion, this Court rend has always been to record trative decisions, if such decisions ity must record reasons in support of reasons is meant to serve the that justice must not only be done done as well. also operates as a valid restraint y exercise of judicial and quasi- tive power. as as and or for lly en the ed in vs. ed xt. of the ce, 30 urt rd ns ort the ne int - AMIT KUMAR 2026.04.06 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

       -12- e. Reasons reassure that disc the decision maker on disregarding extraneous cons f. Reasons have virtually b component of a decision m principles of natural justice even by administrative bodies g. Reasons facilitate the p superior Courts. h. The ongoing judicial trend rule of law and constitutiona reasoned decisions based virtually the life blood of judic the principle that reason is the i. Judicial or even quasi-judici as different as the judges and All these decisions serve one demonstrate by reason that t objectively considered. This i litigants’ faith in the justice de j. Insistence on reason is a accountability and transparen k. If a Judge or a quasi-jud enough about his/her decisio impossible to know whether to the doctrine of prece incrementalism. l. Reasons in support of dec and succinct. A pretence o reasons’ is not to be equated process. m. It cannot be doubted that non of restraint on abuse of j in decision making not only m makers less prone to errors b discretion has been exercised by n relevant grounds and by onsiderations. lly become as indispensable a n making process as observing ice by judicial, quasi-judicial and dies. e process of judicial review by end in all countries committed to tional governance is in favour of sed on relevant facts. This is judicial decision making justifying s the soul of justice. dicial opinions these days can be and authorities who deliver them. one common purpose which is to at the relevant factors have been his is important for sustaining the e delivery system. is a requirement for both judicial arency. judicial authority is not candid cision making process then it is her the person deciding is faithful recedent or to principles of decisions must be cogent, clear ce of reasons or ‘rubber-stamp ated with a valid decision making that transparency is the sine qua of judicial powers. Transparency ly makes the judges and decision rs but also makes them subject to by by a ing nd by to of is ing be m. to en the ial did is ful of ar mp ing ua cy ion t to AMIT KUMAR 2026.04.06 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

 17) Larger Ben that assig decision m natural jus fair play in decision b functions arbitrarine decision- hereinbelo       -13- broader scrutiny. (See David Candor (1987) 100 Harward L n. Since the requirement to re the broad doctrine of fairness requirement is now virtually a and was considered part of S (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at University of Oxford, 2001 E Court referred to Article 6 Human Rights which require reasons must be given for jud o. In all common law jurisdi role in setting up precedents development of law, requirem decision is of the essence a Process”. In a quest to further eluc er Bench in S.N. Mukherjee (supr assigning reasons in support of sion making process. The objec ral justice is to prevent the miscarr play in action. Therefore, the requ sion by an administrative authori tions achieves this object by rariness and ensuring a degree of -making. The relevant ob inbelow:- “38. The object und justice "is to prevent miscar "fair play in action." As vid Shapiro in Defence of Judicial rd Law Review 731-737). to record reasons emanates from ness in decision making, the said lly a component of human rights of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See at 562 para 29 and Anya vs. 01 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the 6 of European Convention of quires, “adequate and intelligent r judicial decisions”. risdictions judgments play a vital ents for the future. Therefore, for irement of giving reasons for the ce and is virtually a part of “Due elucidate the subject issue, a supra) harmoniously carved out rt of every order is integral to object underlying the rules of iscarriage of justice, and secure requirement of reasons for its uthority exercising quasi-judicial t by excluding chances of ree of fairness in the process of nt observations are extracted underlying the rules of natural iscarriage of justice" and secure As pointed out earlier the ial om aid hts ee vs. the of ent ital for the ue e, a out l to s of cure r its icial of s of cted ral ure the AMIT KUMAR 2026.04.06 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

       -14- requirement about recordin by an administrative author functions achieves this obje arbitrariness and ensuring process of decision-maki expanding horizon of the p we are of the opinion, that reason can be regarded a natural justice which gove administrative authorities. T are not embodied rules. Th depends upon the partic whereunder jurisdiction ha administrative authority. Wi a particular power by a including exercise of judicia the legislature, while confe feel that it would not be in th the reasons for the order p authority be recorded communicated to the agg dispense with such a requ making an express provis contained in the Administra U.S.A. and the Administ Review) Act, 1977 of Aus passed by certain specifie from the ambit of the ena can also arise by necessary of the subject matter, the sc the enactment. The public provision would outweight t by the requirement to rec rding of reasons for its decision thority exercising quasi-judicial object by excluding chances of ring a degree of fairness in the aking. Keeping in view the he principles of natural justice, that the requirement to record ed as one of the principles of govern exercise of power by es. The rules of natural justice . The extent of their application articular statutory framework has been conferred on the . With regard to the exercise of y an administrative authority dicial or quasi- judicial functions onferring the said power, may in the larger public interest that er passed by the administrative d in the order and be aggrieved party and it may requirement. It may do so by ovision to that affect as those istrative Procedure Act, 1946 of inistrative Decisions (Judicial Australia whereby the orders cified authorities are excluded enactment. Such an exclusion sary implication from the nature e scheme and the provisions of ic interest underlying such a ght the salutary purpose served record the reasons. The said ion ial of the the ce, ord of by ice ion ork the of rity ns ay hat ive be ay by se of ial ers ed ion ure of a ed aid AMIT KUMAR 2026.04.06 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

 18) proposition decision- reasons b objections 19) contention with the requireme observatio affirms the such a ba objections mechanica remotest p the absenc to discern       -15- requirement cannot, there such a case. 39. For the reason concluded that except in ca has been dispensed with implication, an administr judicial or quasi-judicial fun the reasons for its decision. On the touchstone of the ositions, this Court is of the co -making authority erred, not ons but also by neglecting to com ctions filed by the petitioner. At this juncture, this Co ention advanced on behalf of the S the enquiry report suffices, an irement to record further rea rvations of the Hon’ble Supreme s the view of this Court that no a bald assertion. In fact, extendin ctions to the enquiry report is n hanical process. Rather, it ensure test possibility of arbitrariness an bsence of the reasons, the higher scern the validity of the order. herefore, be insisted upon in asons aforesaid, it must be in cases where the requirement ith expressly or by necessary nistrative authority exercising l functions is required to record ion.” of the abovesaid guiding legal he considered opinion that the not only by failing to record to comprehend and address the is Court must advert to the the State that mere concurrence s, and therefore, there is no r reasons. Nevertheless, the reme Court, as extracted above, no weight can be accorded to tending an opportunity to furnish t is not a mere formality or a ensures eradication of even the ss and miscarriage of justice. In igher authority would not be able in be ent ary ing ord egal the cord the the nce no the ove, d to nish a the e. In able AMIT KUMAR 2026.04.06 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

 20) for the pet non-supply Commissio 21) have a gla case, repo upon by t supply the relied upo concerned principles 22) us, once a as to whet of Punjab conclusion       -16- The second limb of the subm e petitioner was that petitioner has supply of the report, vide wh mission concurred with a view to d Before delving into this issu a glance at the observations in , report of the Union Public Servic by the Disciplinary Authority, it ly the same to the delinquent. H d upon, then the same must be s erned employee, otherwise, there iples of natural justice:- “There may be a ca Union Public Service Comm the disciplinary authority an not necessary to supply a concerned employee. Howe a copy of the same must be supplied in employee, otherwise, ther principles of natural justice On the anvil of the abovesa nce again, test the impugned ord whether, the Disciplinary Authori unjab Public Service Commiss lusion to dismiss the petitioner from e submissions of learned counsel has been prejudiced, owing to e which, the Public Service w to dismiss his services. is issue, it would be expedient to S.K.Kapoor (supra), that in Service Commission is not relied ity, it would not be essential to nt. However, if such a report is t be supplied in advance to the , there will be infraction of the case where the report of the ommission is not relied upon by y and in that case it is certainly ly a copy of the same to the owever, if it is relied upon, then d in advance to the concerned there will be violation of the tice.” ovesaid pivotal observations, let d order from a perspective, i.e., uthority relied upon the approval mmission, while arriving at a r from service or not? nsel g to vice to at in lied l to rt is the the the by nly the en ed the , let i.e., oval t a AMIT KUMAR 2026.04.06 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

 23) the opinio Commissio petitioner operative r of the cas Authority h and the advice/com him, in an reads as u       -17- In context of the matter in i opinion solicited by the Departme mission was not relied upon to ioner was required to be dism ative reasoning was to the effect th case and agreeing to the Inqu ority had only relied upon the fac the enquiry report. Therefore, ce/comments to the petitioner has n in any way. The conclusive port s as under:- “In view of findings o consideration of fact of powers as a Government misconduct in causing loss to the extent of such a hu government officer and a tentatively to dismiss Shri S The Punjab Public Service also consulted. They have the dismissal of the se Executive Engineer vide the dated 5.2.99. In consideration of fac to the Inquiry report Gover order dismissal of Shri Engineer (under suspens Punjab Government Service er in issue, as referred to above, artment from the Public Service n to reach the conclusion that dismissed from service. The fect that ‘in consideration of facts Inquiry report’. In nutshell, the e factual sequence of the case efore, non-furnishing of such has not caused any prejudice to portion of the impugned order gs of the Inquiry Officer an in of the case, he misused his ent officer and guilty of gross loss to government exchequer a huge amount as responsible d a decision had been taken hri Shingar Chand from service. rvice Commission Patiala was ave expressed their consent to service of Shingar Chand e their letter No.DS-196/A.7/113 f facts of the case and agreeing vernor of Punjab is pleased to hri Shinga Chand, Executive pension) P.W.D. (B&R) from rvice with immediate effect.” ove, vice that The cts the ase uch e to rder in his ss er ble en ce. as to nd 13 ing to ive om AMIT KUMAR 2026.04.06 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

 24) impugned statement advice sol does not (supra). of the affir the test of 25) required t already he cryptic, an However, already at qua reinst already be 26) supported as referre petitions remitted to the light of 27) three deca therefore,       -18- A bare perusal of abov gned order makes it clear that t ment that the impugned decisio solicited from the Public Service not breach the ratio of the law As a sequel of the abovesaid e affirmed opinion that the impug est of legality, on this aspect. The third argument raised ired to be delved into, at this s dy held that the order under chal , and therefore, the same is ever, it is imperative to note that dy attained the age of superannu reinstatement and quashing the dy become redundant. In the wake of the af rted with the law laid down by th eferred to above, the impugne ions are set aside. Consequen tted to the authority concerned for ight of the observations recorded he However, as the matter ha decades, and the petitioners mu fore, a Mandamus is passed upon above extracted part of the that there is not even a single ecision is predicated upon the ervice Commission, therefore, it law laid down in S.K. Kapoor esaid deliberations, this Court is impugned order, indeed, passes raised before this Court is not this stage. For, this Court has r challenge is non-speaking and e is required to be set aside. e that both the petitioners have rannuation, therefore, the prayer the order of suspension, has he aforementioned discussion, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, ugned orders in both these equently, both the matters are ed for taking decision afresh, in ded hereinabove. ter has spanned over more than rs must be at their twilight days, upon the authority concerned to, the ngle the re, it or rt is sses not has and ide. ave ayer has ion, ourt, ese are , in than ays, d to, AMIT KUMAR 2026.04.06 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

 after afford their auth objections period of order. 28. in the abov connected 06.04.2026 Ak Sharma       -19- affording due opportunity of hearin authorised representatives, as t ctions already filed by them, pass d of six weeks from the receipt Accordingly, both the writ p e above terms. A photocopy of this order ected case. 4.2026 harma Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable hearing to both the petitioners or , as the case may be, on the pass a speaking order, within a ceipt of a certified copy of this writ petitions stand disposed of, order be placed on the file of (KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE Yes Yes/No or the in a this of, e of AMIT KUMAR 2026.04.06 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document