CWP-13336 IN TH 224 Dharampal Uttar Haryan CORAM: Present : HARPREET 1. Constitution for quashing/ an extent in petitioner vi retirement an 21.07.2017 ( dated 28.09. authority in v Supreme Cou 1 336-2019 N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGA CWP Date VERSUS aryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited an HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA None for the petitioner. Mr. C.S Bakhshi with Ms. Malik Advocates for the respondents. REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) The present petition has been fil tution of India praying for issuance of shing/setting aside the illegal and arb ent in deducting Rs.3,97,680/- from er vide office order dated 31.08.2 ent and for quashing/setting aside the 017 (Annexures P-2 and P-4) respe 28.09.2018 (Annexures P-10 and P ty in violation of law laid down by the e Court of India in case titled as S.N NJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH CWP-13336-2019 Date of Decision: January 12, 2026 ....Petitioner SUS and others ...Responden HARPREET SINGH BRAR . Malika and Ms. Simran Kang, ents. een filed under Article 226/227 of the ce of a writ in the nature of certiorari nd arbitrary action of respondents to from the retiral benefits of the 1.08.2017 (Annexure P-8) after his de the office orders dated 15.07.2017, respectively along with office orders and P-11) passed by the appellate by the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble S.N Mukherjee Vs Union of India 2026 itioner ondents of the rari nts to f the er his .2017, orders ellate on’ble ndia PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.14 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-13336 reported as 1 the nature of Rs.3,97,680/ consequentia 2. 2 336-2019 as 1990 AIR(SC) 1984. Further pr ure of mandamus directing the respo 7,680/- in favour of petitioner along uential relief. On 10.12.2024, the following or “Learned counsel for the the retirement of the petition decided against him vide Ann Annexure P-4 and thereafter, a appellate orders dated 28.09.20 Annexure P-11. He further su aforesaid punishment orders i.e show that the same have Administrative Officer on beha UHBVN, Panchkula and the sam are issued with the approval UHBVN, Panchkula. He further aforesaid appellate orders i.e. A also show that the same have be Secretary/HR-I (Co-ord) on beh UHBVNL, Panchkula and the sa are issued with the approval UHBVNL, Panchkula. He also s never supplied the aforesaid o Chief Engineer ‘OP’, UH Director/Technical-II, UHBVNL ther praying for issuance of a writ in respondents to release an amount of along with 18% market interest with ing order was passed:- r the petitioner submitted that after titioner, three charge-sheets were Annexure P-2, Annexure P-3 and er, appeals were also filed and the 09.2018 are at Annexure P-10 and r submitted that a perusal of the rs i.e. Annexures P-2 to P-4 would ve been communicated by the behalf of the Chief Engineer ‘OP’, e same also states that these orders oval of the Chief Engineer ‘OP’, rther submitted that a perusal of the i.e. Annexures P-10 and P-11 would ve been communicated by the Under behalf of the Chief Engineer/Admn, he same also states that these orders oval of the Director/Technical-II, lso submitted that the petitioner was aid orders actually passed by the UHBVN, Panchkula and the VNL, Panchkula. rit in unt of t with after ere and the and the ould the P’, ders P’, f the ould nder mn, ders II, was the the PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.14 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-13336 3. controvert th P-11) in the rather, the sai 4. 5. P-2 and P-4) Officer and appellate ord passed by the been passed b 6. merits of the office orders well as the a are hereby qu orders strictl applicable ru 3 336-2019 In view of the above, the produce the original record p orders before this Court on the Learned counsel for the respo ert the fact that the impugned orders in the present case have not been pass the said orders have been passed by an Today, there is no representation A perusal of the record and th 4) indicates that the same have bee r and not by the Chief Engineer (re te orders dated 28.09.2018 (Annexu by the Under Secretary, which clearly assed by the competent authority. In view of the above, and with of the case, the present petition is d orders dated 15.07.2017 and 21.07.201 the appellate orders dated 28.09.201 eby quashed and set aside. The respon strictly following the prescribed pro ble rules by the competent authority, a the respondent-Nigam is directed to rd pertaining to all the aforesaid the next date of hearing.” respondents is not in a position to orders (Annexures P-2, P-4, P-10 and n passed by the competent authority; by an Administrative Officer. ntation on behalf of the petitioner. and the impugned orders (Annexures ve been passed by the Administrative eer (respondent No. 3), whereas the nnexures P-10 and P-11) have been clearly shows that the orders have not d without commenting further on the on is disposed of and the impugned .07.2017 (Annexures P-2 and P-4), as 09.2018 (Annexures P-10 and P-11), respondents are directed to pass fresh ed procedural framework under the , after affording an opportunity of d to said ion to 0 and ority; exures trative as the been ve not on the ugned 4), as 11), fresh er the ity of PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.14 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-13336 being heard three months 7. respondent- 8. disposed of. January 12 P.C 4 336-2019 heard to the petitioner. The needful sh onths from the date of receipt of a cer The original record produced b -Nigam is returned. Pending miscellaneous applicat ed of. ry 12, 2026 Whether speaking/reasone Whether Reportable. : dful shall be done within a period of f a certified copy of this order. uced by the learned counsel for the pplication(s), if any, shall also stand (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE easoned. : Yes/No Yes/No iod of or the stand RAR) PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.14 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document