IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 208 CWP-4091-2020 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 16.07.2026 Mukesh Kumar Gupta … PeƟƟoner Versus State of Haryana and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Anurag Goyal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nikhil Lather, Advocate for the peƟƟoner. Mr. Harish Kumar Nain, DAG. ***** NIDHI GUPTA, J . Present Civil Writ PeƟƟon under ArƟcles 226/227 of the ConsƟtuƟon of India has been filed by the peƟƟoner to issue a writ of cerƟorari quashing the impugned order of dismissal dated 14.11.2019 (Annexure P-6); and a writ of mandamus direcƟng the respondents to release all consequenƟal reƟral benefits, including Pension, Gratuity, Leave Encashment, CommutaƟon of pension and other admissible dues, along with all consequenƟal benefits. 2. It is inter alia submiƩed by ld. Senior Counsel for the peƟƟoner that peƟƟoner was posted as Sub Divisional Officer, Kunjpura, Water Services Subdivision, Karnal. While on the said post, an FIR dated 08.08.2016 was registered against the peƟƟoner under SecƟons 7 and 13 of the PrevenƟon of CorrupƟon Act, 1988. Accordingly, vide order dated 08.08.2016 itself peƟƟoner NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.20 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-4091-2020 (O&M) - 2 - was ordered to be suspended. ThereaŌer, chargesheet dated 06.05.2017 (Annexure P-1), was issued under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 2016 (hereinaŌer ‘Rules 2016’). PeƟƟoner had filed reply dated 07.06.2017 (Annexure P-2), to the said chargesheet explaining his posiƟon and innocence. Ld. Senior Counsel submits that aŌer the peƟƟoner had filed reply to the said chargesheet, the Department, did not proceed further. 3. It is submiƩed that, in the meanƟme, peƟƟoner was reƟred w.e.f. 31.10.2017 upon aƩaining age of superannuaƟon vide order dated 18.10.2017 (Annexure P-5). In the FIR, the peƟƟoner faced trial and was finally convicted vide judgment dated 26.03.2019 (Annexure P-3), passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, PrevenƟon of CorrupƟon Act cases, Karnal. The same was assailed by the peƟƟoner by way of criminal appeal i.e. CRA-S-1332-2019 which is presently pending before this Court, wherein sentence of the peƟƟoner was ordered to be suspended vide order dated 09.09.2019 (Annexure P-4). ThereaŌer, vide impugned order dated 14.11.2019 (Annexure P-6), peƟƟoner was dismissed retrospecƟvely w.e.f. date of suspension. 4. Ld. Senior counsel submits that the impugned order of dismissal is passed by the authoriƟes concerned w.e.f. 08.08.2016 ie. from the date of order of suspension. Thus, an ante-dated order of dismissal or order of dismissal with retrospecƟve date is passed, which is perse illegal and against the seƩled law upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein it is held that there is no provision of law of passing any order of dismissal retrospecƟvely. Besides this, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the order of dismissal is not only NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.20 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-4091-2020 (O&M) - 3 - retrospecƟve but is passed aŌer the reƟrement of the employee, which itself is bad in law and cannot be passed by the authority concerned. Therefore, the impugned order of retrospecƟve dismissal i.e. Annexure P-6 is liable to be set aside. 5. Ld. Senior counsel further submits that it is also menƟoned in the order of dismissal that the offence commiƩed by the peƟƟoner comes within the category of moral turpitude. Whereas as per the InstrucƟons dated 02.02.1973 (Annexure P-7) issued by the Government of Haryana, the offence under SecƟon 7 & 13 of the PrevenƟon of CorrupƟon Act, 1988 does not come within the category of moral turpitude and therefore, this ground taken by the respondent department does not survive and peƟƟoner cannot be ordered to be dismissed aŌer his reƟrement by the authority concerned. It is contended that for this reason as well the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary, unconsƟtuƟonal and hence deserves to be set aside. 6. Ld. Senior counsel further submits that since the order of dismissal is passed on the basis of convicƟon aŌer reƟrement, the peƟƟoner cannot be held to be dis-enƟtled for all his reƟral benefits, as the dismissal order itself is illegal and therefore, the peƟƟoner is very much enƟtled for all consequenƟal benefits of pension from the date of order of dismissal, leave encashment, CommutaƟon of Pension, Gratuity and all other reƟral benefits, due towards the peƟƟoner. 7. It is argued that once the charge sheet culminated into the order of punishment by relying upon Rule 7 (A) (16) of Punishment & Appeal Rules and under ArƟcle 311 (A) of the ConsƟtuƟon of India, the charge sheet itself does NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.20 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-4091-2020 (O&M) - 4 - not survive, that too aŌer the reƟrement, wherein the order of dismissal can never be a punishment for the peƟƟoner now, as it was upto the department to proceed with the charge sheet, but they opted to keep mum and therefore, now aŌer the reƟrement of the peƟƟoner, the order of dismissal by relying upon the above menƟoned statutory provisions cannot be passed. These provisions are applicable qua the employees, who are in service on the date of convicƟon. But once an employee is reƟred, these provisions will not apply, and the order of dismissal cannot be passed by any competent authority under any provision of law. 8. In support of his contenƟons learned Senior Counsel relies upon Division Bench judgment of this Court in CWP-3495-1995 ƟƟed as Rajinder Singh vs. Board of School EducaƟon Haryana and another decided on 19.09.1996 wherein it is held that relaƟonship of master and servant can be brought to an end from the date of order or from a subsequent date but not with effect from an earlier date. It has been held that an employee earns some benefits during the period of service and he cannot be deprived of those benefits by terminaƟon of his service with retrospecƟve effect. In this case the peƟƟoner has acquired a right to get subsistence allowance because he was under suspension Ɵll the passing of the impugned order. By retrospecƟve dismissal from service, he has been deprived of this right and that the respondent no. 1 was not enƟtled to do. Learned Senior Counsel also relies upon another Division Bench judgment of this Court in CWP-16776-1999 Ɵtled as Harish Kumar vs. State of Haryana decided on 07.11.2000 wherein it is held that “…… so far as the NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.20 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-4091-2020 (O&M) - 5 - contenƟon that the order wrongly have been passed terminaƟng the services of the peƟƟoner retrospecƟvely is concerned, the same indeed is not devoid of any merit. AdmiƩedly, the peƟƟoner was held guilty of the offence punishable under SecƟon 302 read with SecƟon 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The judgment is stated to have been pronounced on 15.4.1999. The order terminaƟng the services of the peƟƟoner has been passed on 19.8.1999 with effect from 15.4.1999. In other words, retrospecƟve operaƟon of the same had been given. Indeed, the authority concerned had no jurisdicƟon to pass the order from retrospecƟve effect. It would be deemed to be passed from the date of the order. It is for the authoriƟes to consider as to what allowance has to be given for the period i.e. 15.4.1999 to 19.8.1999.” 9. It is accordingly prayed that the present writ peƟƟon be allowed and a writ in the nature of cerƟorari be issued quashing the impugned order of dismissal dated 14.11.2019 (Annexure P-6) being illegal and arbitrary; and further prayed to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus direcƟng the respondents to release all the reƟral benefits of the peƟƟoner like Pension with effect from the date of dismissal, Leave Encashment, CommutaƟon of Pension, Gratuity etc. along with all other reƟral benefits which are due to the peƟƟoner. 10. Per contra learned Counsel for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed submissions on behalf of the peƟƟoner and contended that peƟƟoner has been convicted in the FIR No.31 dated 08.08.2016 under SecƟon 7/13 of P.C. Act at Police StaƟon, SVB, Rohtak for very serious charges that peƟƟoner was caught red handed while accepƟng bribe money of Rs 40,000/-. NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.20 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-4091-2020 (O&M) - 6 - 11. Ld. State Counsel further submits that as per Rule 7 of the Rules 2016, services of the peƟƟoner have been rightly terminated. Accordingly, prays for dismissal of the present writ peƟƟon. 12. No other argument is made on behalf of learned counsel for the parƟes. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case file and record in detail. I find merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the respondent-State. 13. To briefly recapitulate the factual matrix, while the peƟƟoner was posted as Sub Divisional Officer, Kunjpura, Water Services Subdivision, Karnal, an FIR No.31 dated 08.08.2016 under SecƟon 7/13 of PrevenƟon of CorrupƟon Act at Police StaƟon, SVB, Rohtak was registered against the peƟƟoner. Vide order dated 08.08.2016 itself peƟƟoner was ordered to be suspended. ThereaŌer, the department issued chargesheet dated 06.05.2017 (Annexure P-1), to the peƟƟoner under Rule 7 of the Rules 2016; to which the PeƟƟoner had filed reply dated 07.06.2017 (Annexure P-2). In the meanƟme, peƟƟoner was reƟred w.e.f. 31.10.2017 upon aƩaining age of superannuaƟon vide order dated 18.10.2017 (Annexure P-5). In the FIR, the peƟƟoner was convicted vide judgment dated 26.03.2019 (Annexure P-3), passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, PC Act cases, Karnal. The same was assailed by the peƟƟoner by way of criminal appeal i.e. CRA-S-1332-2019 which is presently pending before this Court, wherein sentence of the peƟƟoner was ordered to be suspended vide order dated 09.09.2019 (Annexure P-4). ThereaŌer, vide impugned order dated 14.11.2019 (Annexure P-6), peƟƟoner was dismissed w.e.f. 8.8.2016 i.e. date of suspension. 14. It is the contenƟon of ld. Senior Counsel for the peƟƟoner that under the 2016 Rules, the peƟƟoner cannot be dismissed from service with NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.20 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-4091-2020 (O&M) - 7 - retrospecƟve effect on the basis of a convicƟon aŌer reƟrement as, as per Rule 2, the Rules 2016 shall apply only to ‘government employee’. Rule 3 (1)(d) defines ‘government employee’ as follows: – "government employee" means any person appointed to any civil service or post in connecƟon with the affairs of the State of Haryana;” 15. Ld. Senior has argued that as the peƟƟoner had reƟred on 31.10.2017, therefore, upon cessaƟon of master-servant relaƟon between the peƟƟoner and the respondents, peƟƟoner could not have been dismissed. 16. Although the said contenƟon of the learned Senior Counsel appears to be appealing in the first instance, however, the same is flawed. As per the proviso to Rule 7(A)(16) of the 2016 Rules, it is sƟpulated as follows: - "The persons charged shall, subject to the condiƟons described in sub rule (3) be enƟtled to cross examine the witness, to give evidence in person and to have such witness called, as he may wish; provided that the officer conducƟng the enquiry may for reasons to be recorded in wriƟng, refuse to call any witness. The proceedings shall contain a sufficient record of the evidence and statements of the findings and the grounds thereof: Provided that it shall not be necessary to frame any addiƟonal charge when it is proposed to take acƟon in respect of any statement of allegaƟon made by person charged in the course of his defence: Provided further that the provisions of the foregoing sub rule shall not apply where any major penalty is proposed to be imposed upon a person on the ground of conduct which has led to his convicƟon on a criminal charge: or where an authority empowered to dismiss or remove him, or reduce him in rank is saƟsfied that, for some reasons to be recorded by him in wriƟng, it is not reasonably pracƟcable to NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.20 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-4091-2020 (O&M) - 8 - give him an opportunity of showing cause against the acƟon proposed to be taken against him, or wherein the interest of the security of the state it is considered not expedient to give to that person such an opportunity" (Emphasis is mine) 17. Thus, a bare reading of the above shows that Rule 7A (16) of the Rules 2016, is amply clear according to which a major penalty can be imposed upon a person on ground of misconduct which has led to his convicƟon on a criminal charge. As per this Rule, it is not reasonably pracƟcable to give an opportunity of showing cause against the acƟon proposed. This rule is applicable on employees irrespecƟve of whether the employee is in service or has reƟred from Government Service. It is incorrect for the peƟƟoner to suggest that once an employee is reƟred from the department, the relaƟon of master- servant no longer survives, and dismissal order cannot be passed. In any event, misconduct was commiƩed by the peƟƟoner when he was in Government Service, that is before his reƟrement. Therefore, acƟon on that misconduct is within the jurisdicƟon of the department which has been taken by the competent authority within the purview of the applicable rules. As such, there is no infirmity in the impugned order dated 14.11.2019 passed by the competent authority from retrospecƟve date with effect from 08.08.2016, i.e. from the date of order of suspension of the peƟƟoner. 18. Furthermore, the said issue came up for consideraƟon before a Three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.9693 of 2013 Ɵtled as Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited vs. Sri Rabindranath Chobey, (SC) Law Finder ID#1719697 decided on NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.20 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-4091-2020 (O&M) - 9 - 27.05.2020 wherein the Rules under consideraƟon were the ‘Conduct, Discipline, and Appeal Rules of 1978’. In similar set of circumstances, a 3-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: - “10.32 Thus, considering the provisions of Rules 34.2 and 34.3 of the CDA Rules, the inquiry can be conƟnued given the deeming ficƟon in the same manner as if the employee had conƟnued in service and appropriate punishment, including that of dismissal can be imposed apart from the forfeiture of the gratuity wholly or parƟally including the recovery of the pecuniary loss as the case may be. 11. 11. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above and in view of the decision of three Judge Bench of this Court in Ram Lal Bhaskar (supra) and our conclusions as above, it is observed and held that (1) the appellant employer has a right to withhold the gratuity during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, and (2) the disciplinary authority has powers to impose the penalty of dismissal/major penalty upon the respondent even aŌer his aƩaining the age of superannuaƟon, as the disciplinary proceedings were iniƟated while the employee was in service.” 19. ContenƟon of learned Senior Counsel for the peƟƟoner that dismissal order cannot be made effecƟve retrospecƟvely, is also liable to be rejected in view of another Three-Judge Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.232 of 1965 Ɵtled as R.Jeearatnam Vs. The State of Madras (SC) Law fnder DDCID #80278 wherein it is held that: “A. Dismissal Order passed with retrospecƟve effect An order of dismissal with retrospecƟve effect is, in substance, an order of the dismissal as from the date of the order with the super added direcƟon that the order should operate retrospecƟvely as from an anterior date - The NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.20 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-4091-2020 (O&M) - 10 - two parts of the order are clearly severable - Assuming that the second part of the order is invalid, there is no reason why the first part of the order should not be given the fullest effect - The court cannot pass a new order of dismissal, but surely it can give effect to the valid and severable part of the order.” 20 From a bare reading of the above, it is clear that the impugned order of dismissal with retrospecƟve effect is perfectly just and legal, and in accordance with the law lay down by the Hon’ble Apex Court; as also in conformity with the Rules of 2016. It is also clear that as per the above judgments, the peƟƟoner is not enƟtled to any reƟral benefits. The judgments relied upon by the ld. Senior counsel would be of no help to the peƟƟoner as, needless to say, law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court will prevail over the view taken by this Court. Even otherwise, the said judgements are disƟnguishable on facts and law. 21. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the present writ peƟƟon. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 22. Pending applicaƟon(s), if any, also stands disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) 16.07.2026 JUDGE Neelam Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.20 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh