CWP-3754- IN TH 212 Hukam Singh Dakshin Hary CORAM: Present : HARPREET 1. of the Consti or order in th 06.11.2020 (A of deduction upon the pe 31.12.2020 (A order dated 0 1 -2022 N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGA CWP-3754 Date of Decis Singh VERSUS in Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and oth HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA Dr. S.K. Bhar, Advocate for M the petitioner. Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate fo **** REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) The present writ petition has be Constitution of India with a prayer for r in the nature of certiorari for quas 020 (Annexure P-8) passed by respon uction of 3% in monthly pension for the petitioner and also for quashin 020 (Annexure P-10) whereby the ap ated 06.11.2020 has been dismissed NJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH 3754-2022 f Decision: February 26, 2026 .....Petitioner SUS nd others ...Responden E HARPREET SINGH BRAR for Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for cate for the respondents. has been filed under Article 226/227 er for issuance of an appropriate writ quashing the impugned order dated respondent No.4 whereby punishment ion for four years has been imposed uashing the impugned order dated the appeal filed by petitioner against issed. Further it is prayed that during itioner ondents te for /227 e writ dated hment posed dated gainst during PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.06 13:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3754- the pendency (Annexures P 2. premises of respondent– found indulg to the tune thereby, resp mandatory in dated 05.02.2 of the said su Parmod Kum petitioner su against him. No.5 was app the petitioner respondent– (Annexure P detailed reply considering t of the petitio (Annexure P 06.11.2020 w was merely 2 -2022 ndency of the present writ petition ures P-8 and P-10) may be stayed. Learned counsel for the petition es of respondent No.6 were inspe –Nigam, and during the course of indulging in theft of electricity. Conse tune of Rs.54,092/- was issued to , respondent No.6 instituted a ci tory injunction, which came to be dec 5.02.2020 passed by the learned tria said suit, the petitioner, who was post mar, SDO, was served with a char ner submitted a detailed reply denyi t him. However, finding the reply to as appointed as the Inquiry Officer. U itioner was held responsible for causi –Nigam. Thereafter, a show ca ure P-6) was issued to the petition eply to the said notice; however, ering the reply, imposed a penalty of petitioner for a period of four years ure P-8). Learned counsel further 020 was never formally communica erely conveyed that the impugned o tition operation of impugned orders etitioner, inter alia, submits that the inspected by the officials of the rse of checking, respondent No.6 was Consequently, a notice assessing loss ued to respondent No.6. Aggrieved a civil suit for declaration and be decreed vide judgment and decree ed trial Court. During the pendency as posted as C.A., along with one Sh. a charge-sheet dated 18.08.2016. The denying all the allegations leveled ply to be unsatisfactory, respondent ficer. Upon conclusion of the inquiry, causing a loss of Rs. 45,112/- to the ow cause notice dated 31.12.2019 etitioner. The petitioner submitted a ever, respondent No.4, without duly lty of 3% cut in the monthly pension r years, vide order dated 06.11.2020 rther submits that the order dated unicated to the petitioner; rather, it ned order had been issued with the orders at the f the .6 was g loss rieved and decree dency ne Sh. 6. The veled ndent quiry, to the .2019 tted a t duly ension .2020 dated her, it th the PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.06 13:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3754- approval of r preferred by grave prejudi the petitione demonstrates proper applic appended w Superintendin one commun the petitioner CWP-2316- Limited and disciplinary p concluded w passed on 06 from the iss had already with the fact renders the im 3. respondents s competent/di order of the petitioner by 3 -2022 al of respondent No.3-Superintending ed by the petitioner was also dismisse prejudice to the petitioner. It is conten titioner in the appeal were not du strates that the appeal was decided in application of mind. Reference has al ed with the affidavit dated 12.0 ntending Engineer had passed an orde mmunicated to the petitioner. It is fur itioner is squarely covered by the judg -2020 titled as Suresh Pal Versu and others, decided on 04.03.2025 inary proceedings themselves are vitia ded within a reasonable period. The on 06.11.2020 (Annexure P-8), i.e. af he issuance of the charge-sheet and, s ready superannuated on 28.02.2017. S e fact that the petitioner had retired pr s the impugned action unsustainable in Per contra, learned counsel dents submits that the punishment or tent/disciplinary authority. However, the punishing authority was never ner by the punishing authority itself; nding Engineer. The statutory appeal ismissed by respondent No.3, causing contended that the grounds raised by not duly considered, which clearly ided in a mechanical manner without has also been made to Annexure R- 12.02.2026 to contend that the n order materially different from the t is further submitted that the case of e judgment rendered by this Court in ersus Uttar Haryana Bijli Nigam 3.2025. Lastly, it is argued that the e vitiated in law, as the same were not . The punishment order came to be , i.e. after a lapse of nearly four years and, significantly, after the petitioner 017. Such inordinate delay, coupled ired prior to the imposition of penalty, able in the eyes of law. unsel appearing on behalf of the ent order was, in fact, passed by the ever, it is not disputed that the said never directly communicated to the itself; rather, the communication was ppeal ausing ed by learly ithout -2 t the m the ase of urt in gam at the re not to be years tioner upled nalty, f the by the e said to the n was PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.06 13:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3754- issued by th punishing au controvert th the petitione itself, but w sought to be due approva impugned pro 4. through the c sheet was se proceedings w petitioner had Nigam has co down by the Court of emphasizing expeditiously "31) T the em the del by taki 33) ...e endeav 4 -2022 by the Under Secretary, purported authority. Learned counsel for t vert the position that the decision on th titioner was likewise not communica but was conveyed through the punis to be contended that such communic proval of the competent/appellate a ned proceedings. I have heard the learned coun h the case file with their able assistanc as served upon the petitioner on 18 dings were not decided in a reasonabl ner had retired from service on 28.02. has conducted the departmental proc y the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prem Delhi and another, (2015) 1 sizing the duty of the employer to con tiously, the Hon’ble Apex Court held a 1) Time and again, this Court has e e employer to ensure that the depart e delinquent employee is concluded w taking priority measures... ) ...every employer (whether State deavor to conclude the departmen rportedly with the approval of the l for the respondents also does not n on the statutory appeal preferred by unicated by the appellate authority punishing authority. However, it is munication, having been issued with llate authority, does not vitiate the d counsel for the parties and gone sistance. It transpires that the charge on 18.08.2016 and the departmental sonable despatch especially when the 28.02.2017. As such, the respondent l proceedings in violation of law laid Prem Nath Bali v. Registrar, High 5) 16 SCC 415, wherein while to conclude disciplinary proceedings held as under: as emphasized that it is the duty of partmental inquiry initiated against ded within the shortest possible time tate or private) must make sincere tmental inquiry proceedings once f the s not red by hority , it is with te the gone harge- ental en the ndent- w laid igh while edings ty of inst time cere nce PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.06 13:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3754- initiate giving conclu for the arising made t the cau 5. Punjab v. Ch B.P Jeevan R “10. N of five whethe case. conduc disco consid Such d is thus of pro fides unexpl But ho given c delinqu interdi factors the tot in a p favour 5 -2022 itiated against the delinquent employ ving priority to such proceedings an ncluded within six months as an out r the employer to conclude due t ising in the proceedings within the ti ade to conclude within reasonably e e cause and the nature of inquiry but 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 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. ……” ployee within a reasonable time by s and as far as possible it should be outer limit. Where it is not possible ue to certain unavoidable causes the time frame then efforts should be ly extended period depending upon y but not more than a year." 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 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 e by d be sible uses d be pon te of ustice elay n is this t be after se of icer. and tion ala d is ges. f the the be the n on ulge s in PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.06 13:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3754- 6. Court in CW and others, d as under:- 7. limited. It is Article 226 o disciplinary 6 -2022 Reliance can also be placed upo CWP-9606-2022, titled as Khairati , decided on 13.10.2025. The obse “(i) The charge sheet must b period. (ii) The inquiry must be con issuance of the charge sheet. (iii) The Punishing Authority three months of receipt of the inq (iv) The Appellate Authority preferred against the decision o three months of filing such an ap (v) Thus, the entire process conclude within one year at inordinate delay beyond th proceedings and invite an a disciplinary authority (vi) The Administrative Se departments, as well as hea Corporations, are also directed to ensure that the prescribed tim and no disciplinary action is unj The scope of interference in d . It is settled law that this Court may 226 of the Constitution of India wh inary action are arbitrary, disproporti (emphasis added) ed upon the judgment passed by this airati Lal Versus State of Haryana e observations made therein be reads st be issued within a reasonable concluded within six months of ity shall decide the matter within e inquiry report. rity shall dispose of the appeal on of the Punishing Authority within n appeal. cess of disciplinary action must at the most. Any unexplained or this period shall vitiate the n adverse inference against the Secretaries of the concerned heads of relevant Boards and cted to conduct a quarterly review d timeline is scrupulously followed s unjustly delayed.” e in disciplinary proceedings is very t may only exercise its powers under dia when the findings recorded in a roportionate, tainted with procedural dded) y this ana reads able s of ithin peal ithin must or the the rned and view wed s very under d in a edural PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.06 13:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3754- illegality, or that the findin conducted in justice, and th 8. Hon’ble Supr (1997) 3 SC following obs “20. A such c therein jurisdi instanc becaus reason the pu of an had se these d this to AIR 19 Venkat SCR 5 SCC 7 v. Un 23 ATC 7 -2022 ty, or manifest prejudice. The Court findings are justified by the material ted in compliance with prescribed pro , and the penalty imposed is proportion Further reliance may be placed le Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corpn 3 SCC 72 while speaking through J ing observation, 0. At the outset, it needs to be me ch cases of departmental enquiri erein does not exercise the powers o risdiction of the High Court in s stance where it is found that the cause of non-observance of princip asonable opportunity; findings are e punishment is totally disproportio an employee. There is a catena of d settled the law on this topic and i ese decisions. Suffice it to refer to a is topic viz. State of A.P. v. S. Sree 1963 SC 1723 : (1964) 2 LLJ nkata Rao [(1975) 2 SCC 557 : 19 R 521] , Corpn. of the City of Na C 714 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 455 : (198 Union of India [(1992) 4 SCC 711 ATC 382 : AIR 1992 SC 1981] .” Court must confine itself to ensuring terial on record, the proceedings were ed procedure and principles of natural ortionate to the misconduct. laced on a Three Judge bench of the orpn. Ltd. v. Ashok Kumar Arora ugh Justice S.P. Kurdukar made the mentioned that the High Court in uiries and the findings recorded rs of appellate court/authority. The in such cases is very limited for t the domestic enquiry is vitiated nciples of natural justice, denial of are based on no evidence, and/or ortionate to the proved misconduct a of judgments of this Court which nd it is not necessary to refer to all to a few decisions of this Court on ree Rama Rao [(1964) 3 SCR 25 : LJ 150] , State of A.P. v. Chitra : 1975 SCC (L&S) 349 : (1976) 1 f Nagpur v. Ramchandra [(1981) 2 (1981) 3 SCR 22] and Nelson Motis 711 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 13 : (1993) ng s were atural of the ora, de the rt in rded The for ated l of d/or duct hich o all t on 25 : itra 6) 1 1) 2 otis 993) PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.06 13:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3754- 9. U.P. (1982) commensurat 10. Ram v. State Desai observ 11. Thakur v. U Justice M.N. offence and t 12. imposed upo a just and established a significantly canons of fai fundamental The principle “suit the off assessment o 8 -2022 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in 982) 3 SCC 346 held that the nsurate with the gravity of the offence A Two Judge Bench of the Hon tate of H.P 1983 (2) SCC 442, whil bserved:- “15. ……It is equally true tha commensurate with the gravity any penalty disproportionate to would be violative of Article 14 A Two Judge Bench of the H v. Union of India 1987 (4) SCC M.N. Venkatachaliah observed that “ and the offender.” The doctrine of proportionalit d upon a delinquent employee in disc and reasonable relationship to th shed against them. A punishment whic cantly disproportionate to the proven of fair play and reasonableness but al ental right to equality under Article 1 inciple further extends to ensure that t he offence and the offender,” thereb ent of the nature of the misconduct, t urt in Rama Kant Misra v. State of t the punishment must always be ffence charged. he Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhagat , while speaking through Justice D.A. that the penalty imposed must be ravity of the misconduct, and that te to the gravity of the misconduct 14 of the Constitution…..” the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ranjit SCC 111, while speaking through that “But the sentence has to suit the ionality mandates that any penalty in disciplinary proceedings must bear to the gravity of the misconduct t which is excessive, unwarranted, or proven charges not only offends the but also constitutes a violation of the rticle 14 of the Constitution of India. e that the sanction must be tailored to thereby requiring an individualized duct, the attendant circumstances, the te of ys be agat D.A. t be that duct anjit rough t the enalty t bear nduct ted, or ds the of the India. red to alized es, the PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.06 13:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3754- employee’s s aggravating f 13. responsible o appropriate t met if the pu purpose of ce 14. passed by the have been pa been laid dow made therein 9 -2022 ee’s service record, and the absence ating factors. However, keeping in view the sible officer and some lapse may ha riate to quash the entire proceedings. the punishment is modified to a prop e of censure without being unduly hars The issue regarding the punishm by the administrative officer/subordin een passed with the approval of the pu id down by this Court in Suresh Pal’s herein be reads as under:- 8. “On 15.10.2024, this Court issues involved in the present b cases into different categories and the breaches as alleged follows:- “Category-A The punishment o passed by the administrative stating that they have been pa punishing/appellate authority. Category-B The punishment o passed by the administrative stating that they have been pa punishing/appellate authority authority who passed the pun same. Category-C Punishment order bsence or presence of extenuating or w the fact that the petitioner was a ay have occurred, it would not be dings. The ends of justice would be a proportionate one, which serves the ly harsh. unishment order and appellate order bordinate officer by stating that they e punishing/appellate authority has Pal’s case (supra). The observations ourt in order to streamline various ent bunch of cases categorized the ries based upon the subject matter eged. The categorization was as ent order and appellate order are tive officer/subordinate officer by n passed with the approval of the nt order and appellate order are tive officer/subordinate officer by n passed with the approval of the ity wherein authority/subordinate punishment/appellate order is the der is passed by Under Secretary ing or was a ot be ld be es the order t they ty has ations ious the atter as are by the are by the nate the tary PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.06 13:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3754- 10 -2022 with the approval of the punish order is passed by the punishing appellate authority. Category-D Punishment order is with the approval of the punishi and the appellate order is passe Category-E Punishment orde Secretary with the approval of th Engineer and the appellate ord Apart from the above there is n authority except for mentioning Category-F Order of the com communicated to the petitioner/ the lower administrative staff conveyed. Category-G The punishment o passed by the administrative stating that they have been pa punishing/appellate authority. A non-speaking order, hence, no r Category-H Order on the Repre by lower administrative staff st the competent authority but no supplied. Xxxxxx Category-wise issued are answe CATEGORY-C Where punish Secretary with the approval of appellate order is passed by th approval of the appellate author 58. In those cases where pun Under Secretary by stating tha nishing authority and the appellate shing authority with the approval of er is passed by the Under Secretary ishing authority i.e. Chief Engineer assed by Chief Engineer. order is passed by the Under of the punishing authority i.e. Chief order is passed by Chief Engineer. is no order passed by the appellate ing that the same is being rejected. competent/appellate authority not ner/employee but only informed by taff and therefore no reasons are nt order and appellate order are tive officer/subordinate officer by n passed with the approval of the ty. Appellate authority has passed a no reason assigned at all. epresentation/Legal notices decided ff stated to be with the approval of t no order of competent authority swered as under. unishment order is passed by Under l of the punishing authority and the by the punishing authority with the thority. punishment order is passed by the that it is with the approval of the llate al of tary neer nder hief r. llate ted. not d by are are by the ed a ided l of ority nder the the the f the PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.06 13:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3754- 15. the case, the dated 06.11.2 from the mo imposing pe petitioner for 11 -2022 punishing authority and there authority passes an order on b by stating that it is with the app the same is impermissible and is CATEGORY-F Where orders authority are not communicated only informed by the lower ad no reasons are conveyed. 61. When an administrati communicates to a delinquent e non-approval of his grievance permissible under the law unle been passed by the competent/p communicated to the employe competent /punishing/appellate same has to be communicated to can be done by way of attac forwarding letter. In this way an the reasons behind the orders pa must be done within reasonable not conveyed to the employee, th not been communicated.” Accordingly, in view of the ab e, the present writ petition is partly 06.11.2020 (Annexure P-8) imposing he monthly pension for four years ng penalty of deduction of 1% from for a period of one year. The ord thereafter the aforesaid punishing on behalf of the appellate authority approval of the appellate authority, nd is a nullity in law. ders of the competent/appellate cated to the petitioner/employee but r administrative staff and therefore trative staff of a department nt employee regarding approval or nce /appeal then the same is not unless the actual order which has ent/punishing/appellate authority is loyee. In other words when the llate authority passes an order, the ed to the concerned employee which attaching the order alongwith the y an employee will be able to know rs passed. Conveying of such orders able time. In case the actual order is ee, the same will be deemed to have Emphasis supplied the above facts and circumstances of partly allowed. The impugned order osing a penalty of deduction of 3% years is modified to the extent of from the monthly pension of the he order dated 31.12.2020 (Annexure hing ority rity, llate but fore ent l or not has ty is the , the hich the now ders er is have lied ces of order of 3% nt of of the exure PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.06 13:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3754- P-10) is also revise the pe per annum, realization. certified copy 16. disposed of. February 26 P.C 12 -2022 is also set aside to this extent. Furthe the pension of petitioner and release t , from the date of filing the The needful be done within a per d copy of this order. Pending miscellaneous applicat ed of. 26, 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned. : Whether Reportable. : Further, the respondent is directed to lease the arrears with interest @ 6 % the present petition till its actual n a period of six weeks of receiving a plication(s), if any, shall also stands (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No ted to 6 % actual ving a stands RAR) PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.06 13:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document