CWP-16770 IN TH 218 Jasvir Singh s State of Punja CORAM: Present : HARPREET 1. of the Consti the nature of arrears of g Rs.1,47,128/ 30.09.2015. 1 770-2022 (O&M) N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGA CWP Date o Singh since deceased through his legal VERSUS f Punjab and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA Mr. Lokesh Vohra, Advocate for Mr. Vikas Sonak, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Aditya Pratap Duggal, Advo (through V.C.) REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) The present writ petition has be Constitution of India for issuance of ure of mandamus directing the respon of gratuity and leave encashme 7,128/- with interest with effect fro 015. NJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH CWP-16770-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision: February 03, 2026 s legal representative Veerjit Kaur .....Petitioner SUS ..Responden HARPREET SINGH BRAR ate for the petitioner. unjab. , Advocate for respondent No.2 been filed under Article 226/227 ce of an appropriate writ or order in respondents No.2 and 3 to release the ashment withheld to the tune of t from the date of retirement i.e. 2026 itioner ondents /227 der in se the ne of nt i.e. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.05 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-16770 2. petitioner is t as a Clerk. T throughout h charge-sheete of negligenc Stand, Nabha never conclu on 28.03.202 him stood a retirement, an the husband dated 20.10.2 released upo argued that retiral benefi It is further s recovery of R which was de the decree ha allegedly suf to release of refers to the 2 770-2022 (O&M) Learned counsel for the petition ner is the widow of a retiree who retir lerk. The husband of the petitioner ha hout his career. However, a few days sheeted and placed under suspension ligence while working as Supervisor Nabha. The said disciplinary proceedi concluded during his lifetime. The hu 03.2021. Consequently, the disciplina ood abated. Learned counsel furthe ent, an amount of Rs.1,47,128/- was w sband of the petitioner. He was comp 0.10.2015 (Annexure P-2) to the effec d upon recovery of the same from that the undertaking was obtained benefits were released only after subm rther submitted that respondent No.2 ry of Rs.1,89,793/- against the contrac was decreed vide judgment and decre ree having been passed in favour of t ly suffered stands recovered and, the ase of the withheld amount of Rs.1,4 to the order dated 17.12.2024 passed etitioner, inter alia, contends that the o retired from service on 30.09.2015 ner had rendered satisfactory service days prior to his retirement, he was nsion on 23.09.2015 on the allegation ervisor in the Fees Department, Bus oceedings remained pending and were he husband of the petitioner expired iplinary proceedings initiated against further submits that at the time of was withheld from the retiral dues of compelled to furnish an undertaking e effect that the said amount would be from the concerned contractor. It is ained under financial duress, as the r submission of the said undertaking. No.2-Council had instituted a suit for contractor, namely Sh. Satnam Singh, decree dated 21.03.2024. In view of ur of the respondent-Council, the loss d, therefore, the petitioner is entitled 1,47,128/-. Learned counsel also assed by respondent No.2 (Annexure at the .2015 ervice e was gation t, Bus were xpired gainst me of ues of taking uld be . It is as the aking. uit for Singh, ew of e loss ntitled l also exure PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.05 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-16770 R-2/1) and su any portion o 3. the amount i voluntarily fu that upon rec to court orde of Rs.90,000/ 4. perused the sheet was iss was due to re the disciplina end and rema disciplinary p despatch as h Registrar, Hi 5. Punjab v. Ch B.P Jeevan R “10. N of five whethe case. conduc discove 3 770-2022 (O&M) and submits that there is no justificatio rtion of the gratuity of the petitioner’s Per contra, learned counsel for ount in question was withheld strict rily furnished by the husband of the p on recovery of an amount of Rs.94,550 t orders on 16.12.2016 in the office o 0,000/- was released to the late husban I have heard the learned cou d the record with their able assistanc as issued to the husband of the petitio e to retire on 30.09.2015. Thereafter, ciplinary proceedings were neither con d remained pending for more than fiv inary proceedings are required to be as held by the Hon’ble Supreme C r, High Court of Delhi and another, A Two Judge Bench of the Hon v. Chaman Lal Goyal 1995(2) SCC evan Reddy observed that, 0. Now remains the question of dela five and a half years in serving ether the said delay warranted th It is trite to say that such dis nducted soon after the irregularitie scovering the irregularities. They ca tification for continued withholding of ner’s late husband. sel for respondent No.2 submits that strictly in terms of the undertaking f the petitioner. It is further submitted 94,550/- from the contractor pursuant ffice of the Municipal Council, a sum husband of the petitioner. d counsel for the parties and have sistance. It emerges that the charge petitioner on 23.09.2015, whereas he eafter, he expired on 28.03.2021, yet er concluded nor brought to a logical han five years. It is trite law that the to be concluded within a reasonable me Court in Prem Nath Bali Versus ther, 2015. Hon’ble Supreme court in State of SCC 570 Speaking through Justice delay. There is undoubtedly a delay ving the charges. The question is d the quashing of charges in this h disciplinary proceeding must be arities are committed or soon after ey cannot be initiated after lapse of ing of ts that taking mitted rsuant a sum have harge- eas he 1, yet ogical at the nable rsus te of ustice elay n is this t be after se of PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.05 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-16770 consid Such d is thus of pro fides unexpl But ho given c delinqu interdi factors the tot in a p favour 6. Nath Bali (s made the foll “31) T the em the del by taki under all the conclu loss an 32) As the in becaus the del ventila conclu 33) Ke that ev endeav initiate by giv should not po causes should depend a year 4 770-2022 (O&M) nsiderable time. It would not be ch delay also makes the task of pro thus not also in the interest of adm proceedings is bound to give room es and misuse of power. If th explained, the court may well inte t how long a delay is too long alwa ven case. Moreover, if such delay is linquent officer in defending him terdicted. Wherever such a plea is ra ctors appearing for and against the s e totality of circumstances. In other a process of balancing. Now, let vour of the respondent. ……” A Two Judge Bench of the Ho (supra) while speaking through he following observations, 1) Time and again, this Court has e e employer to ensure that the depart e delinquent employee is concluded w taking priority measures. In cases der suspension during the pendency l the more imperative for the employ ncluded in the shortest possible tim ss and prejudice to the rights of the d ) As a matter of experience, we often e inquiry, the issue involved there cause if the findings of the inquiry e delinquent employee, he invariabl ntilate his grievance, which again nclusion. ) Keeping these factors in mind, we every employer (whether State o deavor to conclude the departmen itiated against the delinquent empl giving priority to such proceedin ould be concluded within six month t possible for the employer to concl uses arising in the proceedings wit ould be made to conclude within pending upon the cause and the na year.” be fair to the delinquent officer. f proving the charges difficult and f administration. Delayed initiation room for allegations of bias, mala f the delay is too long and is l interfere and quash the charges. lways depends upon the facts of the ay is likely to cause prejudice to the himself, the enquiry has to be is raised, the court has to weigh the the said plea and take a decision on ther words, the court has to indulge let us see what are the factors in (emphasis added) the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prem ough Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, has emphasized that it is the duty of partmental inquiry initiated against ded within the shortest possible time ases where the delinquent is placed ency of such inquiry then it becomes ployer to ensure that the inquiry is e time to avoid any inconvenience, the delinquent employee. often notice that after completion of therein does not come to an end uiry proceedings have gone against riably pursues the issue in Court to gain consumes time for its final d, we are of the considered opinion ate or private) must make sincere tmental inquiry proceedings once employee within a reasonable time eedings and as far as possible it onths as an outer limit. Where it is onclude due to certain unavoidable s within the time frame then efforts ithin reasonably extended period nature of inquiry but not more than (emphasis added) icer. and tion ala d is ges. f the the be the n on ulge s in dded) rem Sapre, ty of inst time aced mes ry is nce, n of end inst rt to final nion cere once time le it it is able forts riod than dded) PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.05 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-16770 7. disciplinary causes menta charges are p abnormal an delinquent is non-availabil effectively. W delay withou proceedings. 8. unnecessary disciplinary accountabilit system. A la administratio cannot be pe an employee 9. Satnam Singh 21.03.2024. A of the undert the said unde husband of t 5 770-2022 (O&M) Every delinquent employee ha inary proceedings concluded exped mental agony, financial hardship, and s are proven. This is considered a puni al and remains unexplained by the ent is presumed. The employee may ailability of witnesses, fading mem vely. While serious charges may w without justification tilts the balan dings. The employer must conduct pro ssary delay. Protracted enquiries inary mechanism, instead of ensur tability they breed inefficiency, dem . A lack of seriousness in pursuing stration and may indicate malice or be permitted to keep the sword of di loyee indefinitely. Moreover, the civil suit filed aga Singh, stands decreed by the learned 024. As regards the objection raised undertaking furnished by the husband d undertaking was obtained under co d of the petitioner was constrained t yee has a legitimate right to have expeditiously. Undue prolongation ip, and social stigma, even before the a punishment in itself. When delay is by the department, prejudice to the e may suffer from loss of evidence, memory, and inability to defend ay warrant continuation, prolonged balance in favor of quashing the ct proceedings diligently and without iries defeat the very purpose of ensuring efficiency, integrity, and , demoralization, and distrust in the suing charges reflects poorly on the ce or oblique motives, the employer of disciplinary action dangling over led against the contractor, namely Sh. arned trial Court vide judgment dated aised by the respondents on the basis sband of the petitioner, it appears that der compelling circumstances, as the ined to furnish the same in order to have gation re the lay is to the dence, efend onged g the ithout se of , and in the n the ployer over ly Sh. dated basis that as the der to PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.05 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-16770 secure releas undertaking, case of the p rendered by State of Pun thereof reads 10. petition is a release the pe 6 770-2022 (O&M) release of his retiral benefits at the t aking, therefore, cannot be termed as f the petitioner on this count is squa ed by this Court in CWP-28761-202 Punjab and others, decided on 25 reads as under:- 17. “Unfortunately, t undertakings from employees w tedious litigation is rather com exploitative as they often per benefits including arrears of sa service and retiral benefits an employees under duress. Often issued fresh appointment letters hand, to deny them any benefi directly impacts their regulariz benefits. Considering that li employees often remain silent i practices. This Court cannot advantage of their employees’ f them to their will. As such, answered in the following terms ‘Such exploitative undert no employee can be fo statutory rights.’ Consequently, in view of the fo n is allowed. The respondents/compe pending withheld amount of Rs.1, t the time of his retirement. Such an med as voluntary. Consequently, the is squarely covered by the judgment 2025, titled Ranjit Singh Versus 25.09.2025. The relevant portion , the practice of extracting es who have been reinstated after common. These undertakings are pertain to forgoing past service of salary, increments, continuity of s and are obtained by placing the ften the reinstated employees are tters, as is the case in the matter at enefits of their past service, which larization, seniority and pensionary t livelihoods are at stake, the ent in the face of these exploitative nnot allow an employer to take es’ financial circumstances to bend ch, the question framed above is rms:- dertakings are void ab initio since e forced to contract out of his the foregoing discussion, the present /competent authority are directed to f Rs.1,47,128/- towards gratuity of the ch an y, the gment rsus rtion ting after are ce y of the are r at hich nary the tive take end e is ince his resent ted to of the PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.05 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-16770 late husband at the rate of husband of th released with certified copy 11. of. February 03 P.C 7 770-2022 (O&M) sband of the petitioner in favour of th rate of 6% per annum, to be calculate d of the petitioner till the date of actua within a period of three months d copy of this order. Pending miscellaneous applicati y 03, 2026 Whether speaking/reasone Whether Reportable. : r of the petitioner along with interest lculated from the date of death of the ctual realization. The same shall be onths from the date of receipt of a plication, if any, also stands disposed (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE easoned. : Yes/No Yes/No terest of the all be t of a posed RAR) PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.05 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document