IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH 231 CWP-17401-2022 Date of Decision: 27.07.2026 ZILE SINGH ... Petitioner VERSUS UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. AND OTHERS ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY. **** Present: Mr. Arnav Nain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Satyam Tandon, Advocate for the respondents. **** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) 1. Prayer made in the present petition is for quashing the punishment order dated 05.08.2021, Annexure P-8 and one dated 03.12.2021, Annexure P-10, rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner was working as a Junior Engineer and has wrongly been awarded punishment of cut of 10% in pension for three years without considering his long service of 24 years. Even the charges were not proved against him. Subsequently, the appeal filed by him was also dismissed vide order dated 03.12.2021, Annexure P-10. 3. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the punishment order was validly passed after adopting due procedure and granting him opportunity of personal hearing on 25.11.2021. Thus, prays for dismissal of the present petition. RAJENDER KUMAR 2026.07.30 15:32 I am the author of this document CWP-17401-2022 -2- 4. Heard learned counsel on either side. 5. Pertinently, grave allegation of demanding bribe has been proved against the petitioner, based on the statement of complainant as well as an audio CD, tendered before the Enquiry Officer by the Vigilance Team. All essential aspects have been duly gone into and considered by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority. 6. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Lalit Popli vs. Canara Bank1 has enunciated the law as regards the limited scope of interference in disciplinary proceedings by the Courts, wherein it was held that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Authority. Its jurisdiction is circumscribed by limits of judicial review to correct errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. Judicial review is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an Appellate Authority. 7. In SBI vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava2 Hon'ble the Supreme Court set aside the judgment quashing the punishment order passed, by observing that the power of judicial review, of the constitutional Courts, is an evaluation of the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment, not of conclusion. The Court/Tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held against the delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the Disciplinary Authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no 1 (2003) 3 SCC 583 2 (2021) 2 SCC 612 RAJENDER KUMAR 2026.07.30 15:32 I am the author of this document CWP-17401-2022 -3- reasonable person would have ever reached or where the conclusions upon consideration of the evidence reached by the Disciplinary Authority are perverse or suffer from patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued. To sum up, the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of Authority as a matter of fact. It was further held that, the constitutional Court while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental inquiry proceedings except in a case of malafides or perversity i.e. where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at those findings and so long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained. 8. As regards the powers of High Court in disciplinary proceedings, Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. P. Gunasekaran3, had observed thus: “13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not: (i) reappreciate the evidence; (ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law; (iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence; (iv) go into the reliability of the evidence; (v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based. (vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be; (vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.” 3 (2015) 2 SCC 610 RAJENDER KUMAR 2026.07.30 15:32 I am the author of this document CWP-17401-2022 -4- 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner, despite best efforts, was unable to make the case for interference in the impugned orders there being no illegality, perversity or procedural flaw nor the punishment disproportionate. Moreover, this Court cannot act as a second Court of Appeal in the disciplinary proceedings and venture into reappreciation of evidence. 10. In the wake of above, the present petition being sans merit, is hereby dismissed. 11. Pending applications, if any, shall be disposed of accordingly. (AMAN CHAUDHARY) JULY 27, 2026. JUDGE Rajender Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No RAJENDER KUMAR 2026.07.30 15:32 I am the author of this document