CWP-3021-2001 (O&M) -1- 203 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-3021-2001 (O&M) DECIDED ON:13.07.2026 SAGAR SINGH .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PB.ETC. .....RESPONDENT(S) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr. Bikramjit Singh Patwalia, Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Masih, Advocate for the petitioner(s) Mr. TPS Walia, AAG Punjab SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL) Prayer 1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 17.10.2000 (Annexure P-7) whereby one annual increment of the petitioner has been stopped with cumulative effect being, totally arbitrary, illegal. Factual Conspectus 2. The petitioner was appointed as Sub Inspector in the Food and Supplies Department on 24.04.1970. While serving as Inspector Grade-I during 1996-97, the petitioner was issued a charge-sheet dated 18.09.1997 (Annexure P- MEENU 2026.07.22 14:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3021-2001 (O&M) -2- 2) under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 (in short as “1970 Rules”), alleging delay in forwarding weighment documents relating to four wagons of custom-milled rice, resulting in delayed laboratory testing and consequent financial loss to PUNSUP. The petitioner denied the allegations, asserting that the complaint was motivated as he had earlier recommended registration of an FIR against the concerned miller, M/s Fauja Singh and Sons. 3. A regular departmental enquiry was conducted in which the Enquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner. However, the disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings, issued a disagreement note and, after the petitioner did not submit any reply thereto, imposed the punishment of stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect by order dated 09.06.2000. On appeal, the punishment was modified to stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect vide order dated 17.10.2000 (Annexure P-7). 4. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the punishment and the appellate order. It is also the case of the petitioner that on account of the punishment, his case for promotion to the post of Assistant Food and Supplies Officer was not considered, despite his juniors having been promoted. Contention On Behalf of the Petitioner 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the departmental proceedings were initiated on the basis of a false and motivated complaint made by M/s Fauja Singh and Sons, against whom an FIR had been registered on his MEENU 2026.07.22 14:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3021-2001 (O&M) -3- recommendation. It is submitted that the Enquiry Officer categorically held the charges to be not proved, yet the disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings. 6. Learned counsel argued that the imposition of punishment of stoppage of one increment has been awarded to the petitioner with a predetermined mind without supplying a copy of the enquiry report, thereby denying him an effective opportunity to respond to the disagreement note. It is further contended that no financial loss was caused to the department, similarly placed officials were treated more leniently, and the punishment has unjustly deprived him of promotion to the post of Assistant Food and Supplies Officer. On behalf of respondents 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submit that the petitioner failed to discharge his official duties by not ensuring timely submission of the weighment documents to the laboratory, resulting in delayed payments and dereliction of duty. It is urged that although the Enquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner, the disciplinary authority, upon independent consideration of the record, disagreed with the findings, issued a disagreement note, afforded the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, and thereafter imposed the punishment in accordance with the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970. It is further submitted that the appellate authority, after due consideration, reduced the penalty from stoppage of three increments to one increment with cumulative effect, and therefore the impugned orders call for no interference by this court. 8. Heard. MEENU 2026.07.22 14:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3021-2001 (O&M) -4- Analysis 9. Having heard the rival contentions raised by counsel of both parties, this court considers it apt to discuss the admitted facts presented before this Court. The record reveals that while the petitioner was posted as Inspector Grade-I during the crop year 1996-97, he was entrusted with the inspection of custom-milled rice at FCI, Gurdaspur. The charge-sheet dated 18.09.1997 (Annexure P-2) specifically alleged that the petitioner failed to ensure timely transmission of the weighment documents relating to four wagons of M/s Fauja Singh and Sons to the Laboratory. The respondents have consistently maintained that, in terms of the prescribed procedure, it was the duty of the inspecting officer not merely to prepare the weighment documents but also to ensure that they reached the Laboratory. Owing to the delayed submission of the documents, payment to the miller was delayed, resulting in liability towards interest. 10. The principal defence of the petitioner is that it was a prevailing departmental practice to hand over the weighment documents to the miller for onward submission to the Laboratory. However, this court is of the opinion that this contention cannot be accepted. Even assuming that such a practice had developed over a period of time, the same being contrary to the prescribed procedure, could not confer legitimacy upon an otherwise irregular act. A public servant cannot justify non-compliance with official instructions by pleading that others were also following the same course. Thus, the petitioner cannot be allowed to take cover of some departmental practice which is itself against the binding Government instructions as such a defence strikes at the very root of administrative discipline and accountability. The disciplinary authority, therefore, MEENU 2026.07.22 14:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3021-2001 (O&M) -5- rightly held the petitioner accountable for failing to discharge the duty entrusted to him. 11. The petitioner also seeks to rely upon the fact that the Enquiry Officer exonerated him. However, the law is equally well settled that the disciplinary authority is not bound by the findings of the Enquiry Officer. It is well within it’s authority to differ with such findings, provided reasons are recorded and the delinquent employee is afforded an opportunity to meet the proposed disagreement. In Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra, (1998) 7 SCC 84, the Supreme Court held that while the disciplinary authority may disagree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, it must record reasons and afford an opportunity before recording a finding of guilt. The material placed on record shows that a disagreement note dated 25.01.2000 (Annexure P-4) was issued to the petitioner before the punishment order dated 09.06.2000 (Annexure P-5) came to be passed. Thereafter, in appeal, the punishment itself was reduced from stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect to one annual increment with cumulative effect vide order dated 17.10.2000 (Annexure P-7), reflecting due consideration shown by the appellate authority. 12. Another submission raised by the petitioner is that the enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner, whereby he failed to prepare his defence against the show cause notice issued by the respondent along with the disagreement note, however, a perusal of the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner dated 12.07.2000 (Annexure P-6) against the order of punishment shows that the petitioner never urged this ground before the competent appellate authority. The appellate order dated 17.10.2000 (Annexure P-7) also does not indicate that any such objection was raised. A plea not urged before the departmental appellate authority cannot MEENU 2026.07.22 14:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3021-2001 (O&M) -6- ordinarily be permitted to be raised for the first time in writ proceedings, particularly when no prejudice has been demonstrated. 13. The contention that no financial loss was caused to the department is equally unavailing. The charge is not merely founded on pecuniary loss but on dereliction of official duty. A disciplinary proceeding is concerned with the conduct of the employee and whether he faithfully discharged the duties attached to his office. Once the prescribed procedure required the petitioner to ensure timely forwarding of the weighment documents, failure to do so constitutes misconduct irrespective of whether the eventual financial consequences were substantial or otherwise. 14. The scope of interference under Article 226 in disciplinary matters is extremely limited. This Court does not re-appreciate evidence as an appellate forum. Judicial review is confined to examining the decision-making process and not the correctness of the findings on facts. In B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749, the Supreme Court held that the High Court cannot substitute its own conclusions for those of the disciplinary authority unless the findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or the proceedings suffer from violation of statutory rules or principles of natural justice. Similarly, in Union of India vs P. Gunasekaran 2015(2) SCC 610, the apex court laid down the specific grounds of review, 13. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, re-appreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge No. I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into re-appreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether : MEENU 2026.07.22 14:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3021-2001 (O&M) -7- a. the enquiry is held by a competent authority; b. the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf; c. there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings; d. the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case; e. the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations; f. the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion; g. the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence; h. the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding; i. the finding of fact is based on no evidence. Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not: (i). re-appreciate the evidence; (ii). interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law; (iii). go into the adequacy of the evidence; (iv). go into the reliability of the evidence; (v). interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based. (vi). correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be; (vii). go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience. 15. In the present case, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet, submitted his reply, participated in the enquiry, was issued a disagreement note and only after following proper procedure in accordance with the principles of natural justice, that the punishment order dated 09.06.2000 (Annexure P-5) was issued. Moreover, the petitioner availed the statutory remedy of appeal, where the punishment was substantially reduced by order dated 17.10.2000 (Annexure P-7). No procedural illegality, perversity or violation of any mandatory provision has MEENU 2026.07.22 14:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3021-2001 (O&M) -8- been pleaded by the petitioner which would warrant interference of this Court in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. Conclusion 16. Accordingly, in view of this discussion made hereinabove this Court is of the considered opinion that there exists no ground of interference for this Court with the impugned appellate order dated 17.10.2000 (Annexure P-7) passed by competent authority whereby the reduced punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect has been awarded to the petitioner. Therefore, the same is upheld. 17. The present writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. 18. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (SANDEEP MOUDGIL) 13.07.2026 JUDGE Meenu Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable :Yes/No MEENU 2026.07.22 14:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document