HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP-11028-2022 (O&M) **** Som Nath ... Petitioner VS. State of Haryana & Anr. ... Respondents **** 1. Judgment reserved on 01.05.2026 2. Judgment pronounced on 22.07.2026 3. Judgment uploaded on 22.07.2026 4. Whether operative or full judgment Full 5. Delay in pronouncement of full judgment and reasons, if any NA **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL **** Present: Mr. Sunil Kumar Nehra, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Viren Nehra, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Rahul Dev Singh, Addl. AG Haryana **** Sandeep Moudgil, J. (1). The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, for issuing a writ of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 26.02.2021 (Annexure P23) and 21.03.2022 (Annexure P26) and for directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service w.e.f. 17.06.2000 i.e. the date on which he was placed under suspension and the period from 17.06.2000 to the date of retirement be treated as duty period for all intents and purpose and to release the benefits along with interest. (2). The undisputed factual position emerging from the record is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Steno Typist in the Haryana Roadways Department on 02.04.1984 and was later entrusted with the additional charge of the seat of Challan Clerk on 29.02.2000. The allegations against the petitioner pertain to the period from November 1999 to May 2000 V VISHAL SHONKAR 2026.07.23 11:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11028-2022 - 2 - regarding alleged embezzlement of composition fee/challan amounts and issuance of forged receipts in respect of impounded vehicles. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 17.06.2000 and thereafter charge-sheeted on 27.09.2000 and vide report dated 10.09.2003, the charges were proved against the petitioner, whereafter he was dismissed from service on 24.05.2005 (Annexure P15) and the appeal preferred thereagainst was rejected on 16.11.2006 (Annexure P17). Thereafter, in pursuance to the order dated 18.09.2019 passed by this Court in CWP No.8862 of 2007, the orders dated 24.05.2005 and 16.11.2006 were set aside and the matter was remanded to the disciplinary authority for afresh decision from the stage of submission of inquiry report to the disciplinary authority. In compliance thereof, the petitioner was reinstated under suspension on 09.03.2020, however, during the pendency of proceedings, the petitioner retired from service on 31.07.2020 subject to the outcome of the pending disciplinary proceedings. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 26.02.2021 (Annexure P23), the competent authority dismissed the petitioner from service and permanently withheld his pension having been found involved in embezzlement and forgery. The statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner also came to be dismissed vide order dated 21.03.2022 (Annexure P26). (3). Hence this writ petition. (4). Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the inquiry proceedings stood vitiated on account of non-supply of documents, denial of fair opportunity and further that the findings recorded are based on no evidence. It has also been contended that on the same allegations the petitioner already stands acquitted in criminal proceedings and therefore V VISHAL SHONKAR 2026.07.23 11:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11028-2022 - 3 - continuance of departmental punishment would be unjustified. However, a perusal of the earlier judgment dated 18.09.2019 passed by this Court in CWP No.8862 of 2007 shows that this Court had not interfered with the inquiry proceedings on merits nor had the findings of guilt been set aside. The matter was remanded only on account of procedural defect arising from non-supply of inquiry report before imposition of punishment in terms of Managing Director, ECIL vs. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was reinstated under suspension on 09.03.2020, inquiry report was supplied to him, objections were invited, second show cause notice was issued and opportunity of personal hearing was also granted before passing the impugned order dated 26.02.2021. Thus, the defect noticed by this Court in the earlier round stood duly cured. (5). The petitioner has further sought to assail the impugned order on the ground that the findings recorded in departmental proceedings are erroneous and contrary to record. However, the charges against the petitioner pertain to embezzlement of Government funds, discrepancy in deposited composition fee amounts and issuance of forged receipts. The respondents have specifically pleaded that the allegations stood established on the basis of documentary evidence including receipt books, office records relating to impounded vehicles and deposit registers and that the petitioner had cross- examined witnesses during inquiry proceedings. Thus, it cannot be said that the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer are based on no evidence. (6). In State of Andhra Pradesh vs. S. Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723, the Supreme Court held that the High Court under Article 226 does not act as an appellate authority over departmental proceedings. Similarly, in V VISHAL SHONKAR 2026.07.23 11:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11028-2022 - 4 - Union of India and others vs. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610, it was held that re-appreciation of evidence in disciplinary proceedings is impermissible unless findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The petitioner, in essence, seeks re-appreciation of evidence, which is beyond the permissible scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (7). The plea raised by the petitioner regarding acquittal in criminal proceedings is also without merit. Acquittal in a criminal trial does not ipso facto invalidate departmental proceedings as the standard of proof in both proceedings is entirely different. Departmental proceedings proceed on preponderance of probabilities whereas criminal prosecution requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover, the impugned punishment is founded upon findings returned in departmental inquiry on the basis of documentary evidence produced therein. (8). Learned counsel further argued that after petitioner’s retirement on 31.07.2020, no punishment could have been imposed upon him. The said contention also deserves rejection. Admittedly, disciplinary proceedings had been initiated while the petitioner was in service. Rule 2.2(b) of Punjab Civil Services Rules as well as Rule 12 of Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016 specifically empower the competent authority to continue and conclude disciplinary proceedings after retirement and to withhold or withdraw pension where grave misconduct is established. The impugned order dated 26.02.2021 withholding pension permanently therefore cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. V VISHAL SHONKAR 2026.07.23 11:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11028-2022 - 5 - (9). The allegations proved against the petitioner pertain to embezzlement of Government money and preparation of forged receipts while discharging official duties. Such misconduct strikes at the integrity expected from a Government employee dealing with public funds. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the punishment imposed cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate warranting interference by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. (10). Consequently, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (11). Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. 22.07.2026 V.Vishal (Sandeep Moudgil) Judge 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? : Yes/No V VISHAL SHONKAR 2026.07.23 11:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document