CWP-5173- IN T 202(2 cases) 1. Rajinder Sing State of Punja 2. Gurwinder Pa State of Punja CORAM: Present : HARPREET 1. writ petitions sake of brevit 2. Constitution nature of cer 1 -2017 & 2275-2020 HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGA cases) Date o er Singh VERSUS f Punjab and another nder Pal Singh VERSUS f Punjab and another HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA Mr. Ashok Bhardwaj, Advocate Mr. Vikas Sonak, AAG, Punjab. REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) This common order shall dispo titions as they arise from a similar fa brevity, the facts are taken from CWP The present writ petition has bee tution of India for issuance of an ap certiorari for quashing the order da NJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH Date of Decision: January 30, 2026 CWP-5173-2017 (O&M) .....Petitioner SUS ..Responden CWP-2275-2020 .....Petitioner SUS ..Responden HARPREET SINGH BRAR ocate for the petitioner(s). unjab. l dispose of the aforementioned civil ilar factual matrix. However, for the CWP-5173-2017 as been filed under Article 226 of the an appropriate writ or order in the rder dated 16.05.2016 (Annexure P-2) itioner ondents itioner ondents civil or the of the in the 2) PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.07 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-5173- and 25.01.20 operation of writ petition. 3. respondent N competence t his statutory punishment o sought from proportionali he afforded a said opinion. the punishme of the case w the inquiry o that whene inquiry office Hon’ble Sup 1998(3) SCT 4. categorically intention, an placed upon No.25654 of SCT 70. 2 -2017 & 2275-2020 5.01.2017 (Annexure P-4) passed on of the same may also be stayed d tition. Learned counsel for the petition dent No.2 is not the disciplinary auth tence to pass the impugned orders, the tutory remedy of appeal. It is sub ment order dated 16.05.2016 (Annex from the Chief Engineer-cum-CVO tionality of guilt, which was neither su rded any opportunity of hearing to reb inion. It is further contended that, adm nishment order, the punishing authorit case without assigning any reasons fo uiry officer, which is contrary to sett henever the punishing authority dis officer, it must record reasons for su le Supreme Court in Punjab Nationa SCT 833. Learned counsel further subm rically concluded that there was no on, and that the defect, if any, was upon the judgment of the Hon’ble 4 of 2005, Mathura Prasad v. Unio ssed by respondent No.2 and the ayed during the pendency of present etitioner, inter alia, contends that the y authority and, therefore, lacked the rs, thereby depriving the petitioner of is submitted that while passing the Annexure P-2), a report/opinion was CVO regarding the quantum and ther supplied to the petitioner nor was to rebut or defend himself against the at, admittedly, in the operative part of uthority has merely narrated the facts ons for differing from the findings of to settled principles of law. It is trite ty disagrees with the report of the for such dissent, as laid down by the tional Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra, submits that the inquiry officer has as no financial loss, no mala fide , was reparable. Reliance is further on’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) Union of India and others, 2007(1) d the resent at the he ner of g the n was and r was st the art of facts ngs of s trite of the by the isra, er has a fide urther (C) 7(1) PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.07 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-5173- 5. punishing au Engineer. Ho notice was i afforded to en Chief Engine that there wa yet the inqui conditions im carelessness contended tha of two annua 6. petitioner wa the Punjab C provides that disciplinary a disciplinary a is submitted disciplinary p purpose of im 7. through the p Services (Pun 3 -2017 & 2275-2020 On the other hand, learned S ing authority has taken into consider er. However, he is unable to controv was issued to the petitioner nor wa d to enable him to submit his response Engineer. He further submits that alth was no mala fide intention and no l inquiry officer held the petitioner g ons imposed by the Chief Engine sness and negligence in not exerci ded that a lenient view was taken by im annual increments with future effect. Learned State counsel further ner was processed under Common Pro njab Civil Services (Punishment and es that where two or more Governm inary action in a common proceeding inary authority with the consent of the mitted that the said Rule is inten inary proceedings against two or more e of imposing penalty. I have heard learned counsel h the pleadings with their able assist es (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 197 ned State counsel submits that the nsideration the opinion of the Chief ontrovert the fact that no show cause nor was any opportunity of hearing sponse to the opinion furnished by the at although the inquiry officer opined nd no loss to the department occurred, oner guilty of non-compliance of the ngineer, and found him guilty of exercising proper supervision. It is n by imposing the penalty of stoppage ffect. urther submits that the case of the on Proceedings in terms of Rule 12 of nt and Appeal) Rules, 1970, which vernment employees are concerned, eeding may be taken by the highest t of the other authorities concerned. It intended to facilitate initiation of r more Government employees for the unsel for the parties and have gone assistance. Rule 12 of Punjab Civil es, 1970 reads as under:- at the Chief cause earing by the pined urred, of the lty of It is ppage f the 12 of which erned, ighest ned. It on of or the gone Civil PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.07 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-5173- “Comm are co compe Govern action author govern action author 8. common disc express autho gateway: if th may act uni highest may others, makin Secondly, it elements: (i) statutorily co precise pena power from t 4 -2017 & 2275-2020 ommon Proceeding- (1) Where two e concerned in any case, the Gov mpetent to impose the penalty of dis overnment employees may make an o tion against all on be taken in a c thority competent to impose the vernment employee are different, a tion in a common proceeding may thority with the consent of the other. (2) Any order under sub-Rule (i) the authority wh punishing authority for proceedings; (ii) The penalties spe punishing authority shall (iii) whether the proced of Rule 10 shall be allowe Rule 12 establishes a strictl n disciplinary proceedings, operating s authorization and jurisdictional cons y: if the same authority holds dismiss ct unilaterally; if different authoritie t may initiate proceedings, and only w making consent a jurisdictional prer ly, it mandates that any valid order ts: (i) the designated punishing author rily competent authorities and cannot penalties that authority may impos from the outset; and (iii) which proced two or more government employees Governor or any other authority f dismissal from service on all such an order directing that disciplinary a common proceeding and if the the penalty of dismissal on such nt, an order for taking disciplinary ay be made by the highest of such ther. le (1) shall specify- which may function as the for the purpose of such common specified in Rule 5 which such hall be competent to impose; ocedure laid down in Rule 8 and 9 lowed in the proceeding.” strictly conditional framework for erating on a foundational principle of al consent. Firstly, it creates a binary ismissal power over all employees, it thorities hold such power, only the only with the explicit consent of the al prerequisite, not a mere formality. order must explicitly specify three authority, which must be drawn from annot be arbitrarily assigned; (ii) the impose under the rules, limiting its procedural track will govern, ensuring yees rity such nary the such nary such the mon such d 9 k for ple of binary ees, it ly the of the ality. three from ii) the ng its suring PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.07 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-5173- transparency interpreted as cumulative; designating a invalidates th protection of 9. comprehensiv First, the rec consent from nullifying the foundation. S required by authority dra scope of pen applicable pr structural req Compoundin based its dec an extraneou afforded a re the essential complete de protections in 5 -2017 & 2275-2020 rency and preventing mid-stream eted as a sequential, non-delegable str tive; failure to meet any one, w ating a competent authority, or specif ates the entire proceeding, prioritizin ion of statutory appeal rights over adm A bare perusal of the impugned ehensive failure to adhere to the man he record is conspicuously devoid of t from differing competent autho ing the very initiation of the common ion. Second, the order entirely omit d by Sub-Rule 12(2): it fails to fo ity drawn from the statutorily compet of penalties that authority was empow ble procedural track undefined. Thi ral requirements stripped the proce unding these fatal procedural defects ts decision on an undisclosed report r aneous opinion that was neither com d a rebuttal opportunity, while also is ential safeguard of a prior show-ca te deprivation of the sequential p ions integral to a valid disciplinary act tream changes. The rule is thus ble structure where each condition is ne, whether in obtaining consent, specifying the scope and procedure, ritizing procedural certainty and the er administrative convenience. ugned order (Annexure P-2) reveals a e mandatory architecture of Rule 12. oid of any evidence that the requisite authorities was obtained, thereby mmon proceeding at its jurisdictional y omits the mandatory specifications to formally designate a punishing ompetent cadre, does not specify the empowered to impose, and leaves the d. This omission of the rule’s core proceeding of its legal legitimacy. defects, the punishing authority then eport regarding the quantum of guilt, r communicated to the petitioner nor also issuing the final penalty without cause notice, thereby enacting a tial procedural and natural justice ary action. thus tion is nsent, edure, d the eals a le 12. uisite ereby tional ations ishing fy the es the core macy. then guilt, er nor ithout ting a ustice PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.07 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-5173- 10. Punjab Nati speaking thro “14. … in Bim applica bring o advers inquiry (supra employ earlier will n delinqu author inquiry finding author must g to be p who ca further When, delinqu with su the del for oth procee discipl 16. Th of natu thereo 6 -2017 & 2275-2020 A Three Bench Judgement of National Bank v. Kunj Behari M ng through Justice B.N. Kirpal made th 4. ……These observations are clear Bimal Kumar Pandit's case (supra plicable at the first stage itself. T ing out the necessity of the authorit verse finding to give a hearing to quiry officer had given an adverse fi upra) the first stage required an o ployee to represent to the discipl rlier opportunity had been granted t ll not stand to reason that when linquent officers is proposed to be thority then no opportunity should b quiry is not completed till the discipl dings. The principles of natural j thority which proposes to decide ust give him a hearing. When the in be proved then that report has to be o can make a representation before rther action which may be prejud hen, like in the present case, the in linquent officer but the disciplinar ith such conclusions then that auth e delinquent officer must give him r otherwise he would be condemn oceedings what is of ultimate imp sciplinary authority….. . The result of the aforesaid discuss natural justice have to be read in ereof whenever the disciplinary nt of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ri Misra 1998(3) SCT 833 while ade the following observation, learly in tune with the observations upra) quoted earlier and would be lf. The aforesaid passages clearly hority which is to finally record an g to the delinquent officer. If the se finding, as per Karunakar's case an opportunity to be given to the ciplinary authority, even when an ted to them by the inquiry officer. It hen the finding in favour of the be over-turned by the disciplinary uld be granted. The first stage of the sciplinary authority has recorded its ral justice would demand that the ide against the delinquent officer he inquiry officer holds the charges to be given to the delinquent officer fore the disciplinary authority takes ejudicial to the delinquent officer. e inquiry report is in favour of the linary authority proposes to differ authority which is deciding against him an opportunity of being heard demned unheard. In departmental mportance is the finding of the cussion would be that the principles d into Regulation 7(2). As a result ary authority disagrees with the urt in while ions d be arly d an the case the an r. It the nary f the d its the ficer rges ficer akes icer. f the iffer inst eard ntal the iples esult the PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.07 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-5173- inquiry own fi such d to repr officer delinqu discipl inquiry observ can im miscon record 11. Judgement of Mohammad 12. Apex Court every conclu without reaso 13. dissented fro the dissent a 1970 Rules a 14. Hon’ble Sup SC 381) in livelihood, s 7 -2017 & 2275-2020 quiry authority on any article of ch n findings on such charge, it must ch disagreement and give to the del represent before it records its find ficer containing its findings will linquent officer will have an sciplinary authority to accept the quiry officer. The principles of natu served, require the authority, which n impose a penalty, to give an oppo isconduct to file a representation b cords its findings on the charges fram Further reliance may be placed ent of the Hon’ble Apex Court in St mad Badruddin 2019 INSC 764. In Raj Kishore Jha vs. State of Court crystallized the principle thus: conclusion. Without the same, it t reasons is anathema to a system of ju The punishment imposed by ed from the report of the inquiry offi sent and thus per incuriam violating ules and principle laid down by the Ho Reliance can also be placed up le Supreme Court in Mathura Prasad in which it was held that ‘when ood, statutory procedures must be of charge then before it records its ust record its tentative reasons for e delinquent officer an opportunity findings. The report of the inquiry ill have to be conveyed and the an opportunity to persuade the the favourable conclusion of the natural justice, as we have already hich has to take a final decision and pportunity to the officer charged of n before the disciplinary authority framed against the officer.” (emphasis added) laced in this regard on a Two Bench State Bank of India and Ors. vs. te of Bihar, (2003) 11 SCC 519, the thus: "Reason is the heartbeat of e, it becomes lifeless." An order of justice based on the rule of law. ed by punishing authority which officer was without any reason for lating both procedure established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. ced upon the judgment rendered by asad vs Union of India (AIR 2007 ‘when an employee is deprived of st be strictly followed. The ruling s its s for nity uiry the the the eady and d of ority ded) Bench . vs. , the at of order law. which on for ed by ed by 007 ed of ruling PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.07 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-5173- affirmed that that, disciplin hasty, eviden 15. petitions are P-2) and the aside. 16. case. 17. January 30 P.C 8 -2017 & 2275-2020 d that judicial review is maintainable isciplinary authorities must apply thei evidence-free decisions’. In view of the above facts and ns are allowed and the impugned ord nd the order dated 25.01.2017 (Anne Photocopy of this order be plac Pending application(s), if any, sh 30, 2026 Whether speaking/reasone Whether Reportable. : ainable for errors of law or fact, and ly their minds rather than relying on cts and circumstances, both the writ ed order dated 16.05.2016 (Annexure (Annexure P-4) are quashed and set e placed on the file of the connected any, shall also stand(s) disposed of. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR JUDGE easoned. : Yes/No Yes/No t, and ng on e writ exure nd set nected RAR) PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.07 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document