CWP-3685-2022 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-3685-2022 DECIDED ON: 17.07.2026 GURINDER SINGH .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS ....RESPONDENT(S) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL. Present: Mr. Mohit Garg, Advocate Mr. R.S. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner(s) Mr. Siddharth Sandhu, AAG, Punjab Ms. Suniti Sidhu, Advocate Mr. Mandeep Singla, Advocate for the respondent No. 3. SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J Prayer 1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the charge-sheet dated 27.01.2022 (Annexure P-12), whereby disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner on the basis of the preliminary enquiry report allegedly prepared to shield respondent No. 3. The petitioner has further sought stay of the operation of the aforesaid charge-sheet during the pendency of the present writ petition. Brief Facts 2. The petitioner is serving as a Senior Pharmacy Officer in the office of the Civil Surgeon, Gurdaspur. During the relevant period, he was functioning as MEENU 2026.07.22 14:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3685-2022 -2- the Incharge of the District Centre Store, where medicines for the entire district were maintained. On 03.12.2021, an incident arose concerning the movement of Buprenorphine tablets from the Centre Store. According to the petitioner, he intercepted an unauthorized attempt by one Jatinder Kumar, Pharmacy Officer, to steal 30,000 tablets of Buprenorphine from the store, recorded the incident through photographs and videography, and reported the matter to the then Civil Surgeon, Dr. Harbhajan Ram, who in turn informed the police authorities. 2. Subsequently, a preliminary enquiry was ordered by the department. The petitioner alleges that he was called only as a witness in the said enquiry and no notice was issued to him regarding any allegations against him. The enquiry report, however, concluded that the movement of medicines was authorized and recommended action against Dr. Harbhajan Ram. Thereafter, relying upon the material collected during the preliminary enquiry, the competent authority issued the impugned charge-sheet dated 27.01.2022 to the petitioner under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970. 3. Aggrieved by the issuance of the said charge-sheet, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition seeking quashing of the charge-sheet. Contentions On the behalf of petitioner 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned charge-sheet is arbitrary, mala fide and liable to be quashed, as the same has been issued solely on the basis of a preliminary enquiry conducted behind the petitioner’s back. It was argued that no notice was ever issued to the petitioner regarding the preliminary enquiry and that he was summoned only as a witness in MEENU 2026.07.22 14:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3685-2022 -3- the enquiry against Dr. Harbhajan Ram. Therefore, the findings recorded therein could not legally form the basis of initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. 5. It was further submitted that the petitioner, while functioning as Incharge of the Centre Store, had merely discharged his official duties by preventing the unauthorized removal of Buprenorphine tablets and by bringing the incident to the notice of the competent authority. Instead of proceeding against the persons allegedly responsible, the respondents have sought to victimise the petitioner to shield respondent No.3 and other officials. 6. Counsel further argued that respondent No.3 had no authority to authorize withdrawal of the medicines in the manner alleged by the respondents and that the departmental records were manipulated by preparing an ante-dated posting order to justify the presence of Jatinder Kumar in the Centre Store. It was contended that the entire disciplinary action is actuated by mala fides and is intended to suppress the petitioner’s disclosure of serious irregularities. On behalf of the Respondents 7. Per contra, learned State counsel submitted that the writ petition is premature as it merely challenges a charge-sheet and no final order has yet been passed in the disciplinary proceedings. It was argued that the petitioner has an adequate opportunity to defend himself before the Enquiry Officer and, therefore, no interference is called for at this stage. 8. It was further contended that the petitioner had failed to comply with the departmental directions requiring him to hand over the charge of the Centre Store to Shri Tirlok Chand and had acted in concert with Dr. Harbhajan Ram in MEENU 2026.07.22 14:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3685-2022 -4- creating an unnecessary controversy regarding the movement of Buprenorphine tablets. According to the respondents, Jatinder Kumar had been duly assigned duties relating to the distribution of medicines and the subsequent physical verification of stock revealed that no shortage of Buprenorphine tablets existed. 9. Learned State counsel further submitted that the preliminary enquiry disclosed sufficient material indicating the petitioner’s involvement in the alleged misconduct, whereafter the competent disciplinary authority independently decided to initiate proceedings by issuing the impugned charge-sheet. The allegations of mala fides and manipulation of records were stated to be disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings. 10. Heard. Analysis 11. At the outset it is observed that ordinarily the Courts must be slow in interfering with a charge-sheet in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC 28, and Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, (2012) 11 SCC 565, has consistently held that a writ petition against a mere charge-sheet is ordinarily not maintainable as no civil consequences ensue merely by issuance thereof. However, the said judgments themselves carve out an exception where the charge-sheet is shown to be wholly without jurisdiction or else. The present case shall be tested by this Court as to whether is falls within the said exception. 12. The undisputed record reveals that the preliminary enquiry dated 19.01.2022 was not initiated against the petitioner. Rather, the petitioner was MEENU 2026.07.22 14:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3685-2022 -5- summoned only as a witness in the enquiry against Dr. Harbhajan Ram and no notice alleging misconduct was ever issued to the petitioner, nor was he informed that his conduct was under scrutiny. Nevertheless, the enquiry report was subsequently utilized as the sole foundation for issuance of the impugned charge- sheet against him. 13. A preliminary enquiry undoubtedly remains a fact-finding exercise. Nevertheless, where the authority proposes to rely upon findings recorded against a person who was never put to notice that allegations were being examined against him, such exercise loses its character of a fair preliminary enquiry and becomes fundamentally arbitrary. Though the principles of natural justice do not invariably apply to every preliminary enquiry, the competent authority cannot convert the testimony of a witness into incriminating material against him without even informing him that his conduct is under examination. 14. The record further discloses that the respondents themselves admit that the enquiry was principally conducted into the conduct of Dr. Harbhajan Ram. Yet, the impugned charge-sheet against the petitioner does not disclose any independent material gathered against him apart from the conclusions recorded during the said enquiry. The competent authority, therefore, failed to independently assess whether prima facie misconduct attributable to the petitioner existed before invoking the disciplinary jurisdiction under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970. Such mechanical exercise of power is contrary to the settled requirement that the disciplinary authority must apply its own mind before initiating disciplinary proceedings. MEENU 2026.07.22 14:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3685-2022 -6- 15. This Court also cannot lose sight of the nature of the allegations raised by the petitioner. His consistent stand is that he prevented unauthorized removal of Buprenorphine tablets from the Centre Store and immediately informed the Civil Surgeon, whereafter the matter was reported to the police. Whether this version is ultimately correct is not required to be adjudicated in the present proceedings. However, the departmental record itself reveals that the petitioner is the person who brought the alleged incident to the notice of the authorities. In such circumstances, initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him solely on the basis of a preliminary enquiry in which he participated merely as a witness, without any independent consideration of the material, creates a legitimate apprehension that the disciplinary process has been employed for an extraneous purpose. 16. The impugned charge-sheet also reflects complete non-application of mind. It neither records the independent satisfaction of the disciplinary authority nor indicates the material, apart from the preliminary enquiry, which persuaded it to proceed against the petitioner. The disciplinary authority appears to have mechanically adopted the conclusions of the preliminary enquiry without satisfying itself whether a prima facie case under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 was made out against the petitioner. 17. The Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. V.K. Khanna, (2001) 2 SCC 330, has held that where the disciplinary process is tainted by mala fides or is initiated for collateral purposes, constitutional courts are not powerless to interfere even at the threshold. Relevant extract is as under: “37. While it is true that justifiability of the charges at this stage of initiating a disciplinary proceeding cannot possibly be delved into by MEENU 2026.07.22 14:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3685-2022 -7- any court pending inquiry but it is equally well settled that in the event there is an element of malice or mala fide, motive involved in the matter of issue of a charge-sheet, or the concerned authority is so biased that the inquiry would be a mere farcical show and the conclusions are well known then and in that event, law courts are otherwise justified in interfering at the earliest stage so as to avoid the harassment and humiliation of a public official. It is not a question of shielding any misdeed that the Court would be anxious, it is the due process of law which should permeate in the society and in the event of there being any affectation of such process of law, that law courts ought to rise up to the occasion and the High Court in the contextual facts, has delved into the issue on that score. On the basis of the findings no exception can be taken and that has been the precise reason as to why this court dealt with the issue in so great a detail so as to examine the judicial propriety at this stage of the proceedings. ” 18. Likewise, this court is of the opinion that the exception carved out by the Apex Court squarely applies where the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings itself is demonstrably arbitrary or suffers from patent legal infirmity. 19. In the present case, this Court is satisfied that the impugned charge- sheet is founded upon a preliminary enquiry conducted behind the petitioner’s back, wherein he was never treated as a delinquent employee, afforded no opportunity to explain any alleged misconduct, and against whom no independent satisfaction has been recorded by the disciplinary authority before invoking the disciplinary jurisdiction. 20. Consequently, the impugned charge-sheet dated 27.01.2022 (Annexure P-12) is liable to be quashed and set aside. 21. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. However, it is clarified that this order shall not preclude the competent authority from initiating fresh disciplinary proceedings, strictly in accordance with law, on the basis of an MEENU 2026.07.22 14:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3685-2022 -8- independent application of mind and after complying with the requirements of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970. 21. Pending application(s), if any shall disposed off. (SANDEEP MOUDGIL) 17.07.2026 JUDGE Meenu Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No MEENU 2026.07.22 14:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document