IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 218 CWP-26438-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 06.07.2026 D.R. Kairon … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. D.S.Patwalia, Senior Advocate with Mr. Aditya Kush, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Akshit Pathania, Asstt. A.G. Haryana. ***** NIDHI GUPTA, J. Present Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of order dated 29.09.2022 (Annexure P-14) whereby the petitioner has been retrospectively dismissed from service with effect from the date of his superannuation i.e. 31.12.2015. 2. It is inter alia submitted by learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that in the year 1982, the petitioner was appointed as Steno Typist in the Office of Chief Secretary, Haryana Civil Secretariat. In 2003, petitioner was promoted to HCS Branch. Thereafter, vide order dated 31.09.2009 (Annexure P-1) petitioner was posted as Land Acquisition Officer, Panchkula. AMIT KHANCHI 2026.07.07 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order CWP-26438-2022 (O&M) - 2 - 3. Ld. Senior counsel submits that prior to the petitioner being posted as Land Acquisition Officer, Panchkula on 31.9.2009, an Award No.33 of 2007/2008, dated 28.03.2008 (Annexure P-2) had been passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate Department, Haryana granting compensation of Rs.63,52,45,730/-. The process of disbursing the said compensation was initiated by the previous Land Acquisition Officer namely Sh. Dinesh Singh Yadav. However, in respect of the said Award, a chargesheet dated 03.06.2015 (Annexure P-3) was issued against the petitioner proposing to take action against him under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987, alleging that the petitioner during his tenure as Land Acquisition Officer had disbursed compensation amounts of Rs.1,24,47,402/-, Rs.79,05,108/-, Rs.3,51,88,383/- and Rs.1,97,22,380/- amongst the proprietors of the villages as mentioned in the chargesheet without getting the title decided from the competent authority; whereas the land in question was recorded either as Shamlat deh or Nagar Sabha. On 31.12.2015, the petitioner superannuated from service. 4. It is submitted that pursuant to the above chargesheet, departmental enquiry was initiated; in which the petitioner was exonerated from the alleged charges vide Enquiry Report dated 21.06.2019 (Annexure P-5). However, in the said enquiry a Dissenting Note dated 07.02.2020 was affixed by the Chief Secretary, Haryana, who rejected the report submitted by the enquiry officer. The petitioner duly made a representation dated 09.03.2020 (Annexure P-8) AMIT KHANCHI 2026.07.07 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order CWP-26438-2022 (O&M) - 3 - against the Dissenting Note dated 07.02.2020 (Annexure P-6); whereupon vide order dated 06.04.2022, the Chief Secretary recommended 5% cut in pension of the petitioner. Even though the Chief Secretary had recommended a 5% cut in pension of the petitioner, case of the petitioner was re-opened and vide Noting dated 10.05.2022 (Annexure P-10), it was decided that the comments/consent of the Haryana Public Service Commission be taken. Learned Senior counsel contends that the HPSC is only a recommendatory body which has no role to play in disciplinary matters. The disciplinary authority/punishing authority is solely vested with the power to decide as to what punishment is to be given to the charged officer. Despite that the Commission vide impugned letter dated 26.05.2022 recommended retrospective dismissal of the petitioner from service w.e.f. the date of his superannuation. 5. Ld. Senior counsel argues that it is well settled proposition of law that no employee can be dismissed retrospectively. Moreover, the said dismissal is unsustainable also on the ground that as per the Guidelines (Annexure P-12) issued by the Legislative Department, Haryana regarding disciplinary matters, the competent authority is to apply its own mind on the matter and thereafter decide the actual punishment to be imposed. It is contended that the advice of the Commission is only consultative in nature. 6. Learned Senior counsel further points out that the co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Sh. Dinesh Singh Yadav, who had been charged with wrongly disbursing 80% of the compensation amount of Award No.33 dated 28.03.2008 AMIT KHANCHI 2026.07.07 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order CWP-26438-2022 (O&M) - 4 - (Annexure P-2), had been dismissed from service vide order dated 27.05.2022. The said order of dismissal had been challenged by Sh. Dinesh Singh Yadav vide Civil Writ Petition No.16047 of 2022 titled as Dinesh Singh Yadav vs State of Haryana and another. It is submitted that vide judgment-order dated 09.07.2025 (Annexure P-17), the said punishment of dismissal was found to be “disproportionate and excessively harsh”. Consequentially, the said Civil Writ Petition No.16047 of 2022 of Sh. Dinesh Singh Yadav was allowed, and the impugned order of dismissal dated 27.05.2022 was set aside. Learned Senior counsel contends that in view of the fact that the dismissal of Sh. Dinesh Singh Yadav who was charged with having disbursed 80% of the compensation amount has been set aside, the case of the petitioner stands on a better footing; inasmuch as petitioner has been charged with disbursement of only 20% of the compensation amount. It is contended that for the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order of dismissal dated 29.09.2022 (Annexure P-14) whereby petitioner has been retrospectively dismissed from service with effect from date of his superannuation i.e. 31.12.2015, deserves to be set aside. 7. Learned counsel representing the respondent-State of Haryana opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel contends that on dated 29.09.2022, no master-servant relationship existed between the parties. As such, it cannot be said that retrospective order of dismissal was passed against the petitioner. However, learned State counsel is AMIT KHANCHI 2026.07.07 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order CWP-26438-2022 (O&M) - 5 - unable to dispute that the dismissal of co-accused Sh. Dinesh Singh Yadav stands set aside by Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 09.07.2025 (Annexure P-17). 8. No other argument is raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the parties. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. 9. I find merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of learned Senior counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the legislative guidelines regarding procedure to be adopted in disciplinary cases (Annexure P-12) shows that in Clause 8 thereof it is stipulated as follows: - “8. Penalty On receipt of the advice, the competent authority should consider the whole matter including the advice of the Haryana Public Service Commission and determine the actual penalty to be imposed. After considering the whole matter it is in the discretion of the punishing authority to award any of the penalties mentioned in rule 4 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1987.” 10. From the above, it is clear that the Commission has only a recommendatory role; and the discretion and authority to impose punishment is with the competent authority, if it deems fit. In the present case, the competent authority had imposed punishment of 5% cut in pension. However, on the recommendation of the Commission vide letter dated 26.05.2022 (Annexure P- 11), petitioner was dismissed from Service. The impugned order (Annexure P- 14), therefore, deserves to be set aside on this short ground itself. AMIT KHANCHI 2026.07.07 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order CWP-26438-2022 (O&M) - 6 - 11. Furthermore, a perusal of the letter dated 26.05.2022 (Annexure P- 11) issued by the Secretary, Haryana Public Service Commission to the Chief Secretary Government of Haryana reads as follows: “R/Sir, I have been directed to refer to your letter No.40/39/2011- 4S(1) dated 10.05.2022 on the subject noted above and to say that the Commission has considered the matter and is of the view that the punishment proposed by the Government against the aforesaid officer is not commensurate to the offense because in the similar case, the Government has decided to dismiss Sh.Dinesh Yadav, HCS. Keeping in view the proposed punishment of Sh. Dinesh Singh Yadav, HCS, Sh. D.S. Kairon, HCS may also be dismissed from the service in the public interest w.e.f. the date of his Superannuation.” 12. Thus, perusal thereof shows that dismissal from service of the petitioner has been recommended by the Commission only on the ground that similar punishment has been accorded to Sh. Dinesh Singh Yadav. The said advice has been ipso facto adopted and followed by the competent authority without independent application of mind. None of the relevant factors have been taken into account by the competent authority at the time of issuing the impugned order. It was ignored that total quantum of compensation had already been pre-determined at the time of predecessor of the petitioner, namely Dinesh Singh Yadav, the Land Acquisition Officer. As such, the list of co-sharers was AMIT KHANCHI 2026.07.07 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order CWP-26438-2022 (O&M) - 7 - obtained by Shri Dinesh Singh Yadav from the Tehsildar in order to disburse the compensation amount. Moreover, it is the duty of the Revenue Officer i.e Tehsildar, Patwari etc. to check the status of the landholdings i.e in whose name the land is registered. The petitioner was posted as Land Acquisition Officer at the time of a alleged misconduct; and therefore, it was not his duty to ascertain the nature of the ownership of the land. Furthermore, a total of Rs.6,39,24,565/- was disbursed during the tenure of Sh. Dinesh Singh Yadav, whereas an amount of Rs.1,50,29,035/- was disbursed during the tenure of the petitioner. Thus, when the petitioner joined on the post of Land Acquisition Officer, 80% of the compensation had already been disbursed by his predecessor. Petitioner had merely disbursed the remaining 20% based on the same pre-determined amount, in quantification whereof he had no role to play. Notwithstanding, petitioner was issued charge-sheet dated 03.06.2015 (Annexure P-3) pursuant to which the enquiry was conducted in which petitioner was exonerated. Whereas his aforesaid predecessor was held guilty and was awarded punishment of dismissal from service. In the case of the petitioner, very relevant observations of the Enquiry Officer have been ignored; to the effect that that the prosecution has failed to prove that the Gram Panchayat had any title/proprietorship over the lands acquired vide Award No.33. Further, it was also observed that no steps have been taken to recover the compensation disbursed by the petitioner even after a period of 10 years had elapsed since the said amount was disbursed. A AMIT KHANCHI 2026.07.07 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order CWP-26438-2022 (O&M) - 8 - comprehensive enquiry was conducted by the officer and thereinafter, he had exonerated the petitioner. 13. It was also ignored that at the first instance, even the Chief Secretary had accepted the enquiry report qua the petitioner. He had merely recommended 5% cut in his pension vide administrative note (Annexure P-9). However, when the matter was referred to HPSC, seeking opinion prior to imposition of punishment on the petitioner, it was of the view that since the predecessor had been awarded punishment of dismissal from service, therefore, the petitioner also ought to be meted out with similar punishment. In the recommendation dated 26.05.2022 (Annexure P-11), HPSC has given no reason whatsoever as to why the petitioner deserves similar punishment. Despite the fact that in the light of the enquiry report and, considering the role attributed to the petitioner, it was earlier decided that only 5% cut in the pension is to be imposed. 14. In passing the impugned order, the competent/punishing authority has also failed to consider that HPSC is merely a recommendatory body and any recommendation made is directory in nature and not mandatory. Especially, in the present case, when no plausible reasoning has been given by HPSC as to why petitioner is to be meted out with the similar punishment, when no role was attributed to him qua the alleged delinquency, either in the departmental enquiry or even subsequently by the Chief Secretary vide his administrative note (Annexure P-9). It was also not considered that punishment of dismissal cannot AMIT KHANCHI 2026.07.07 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order CWP-26438-2022 (O&M) - 9 - be imposed as per the applicable Service Rules once the petitioner had superannuated from service as, on date, there is no subsisting relationship of Master and Servant. It was ignored that the petitioner had been dismissed 7 years after his retirement. The impugned order cannot be sustained. 15. Further, admittedly, dismissal of Sh. Dinesh Singh Yadav has been set aside by this Court vide judgment order dated 09.07.2025 (Annexure P-17). As the petitioner was dismissed solely on the ground that Shri Dinesh Singh Yadav had been dismissed from Service, in the present scenario, dismissal of the petitioner cannot be sustained. 16. Consequentially, the present writ petition stands allowed, and impugned order dated 29.09.2022 (Annexure P-14) is hereby set aside. 17. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) 06.07.2026 JUDGE N Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No AMIT KHANCHI 2026.07.07 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order