CWP-274 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Vishal Gupta State of Punjab and others CORAM: Present: KULDEEP TIWARI 1. 226/227 of the Constitution of India, dated 03.12.2024 (Annexure P his retirement, in Services Rules, Volume II 2. charge-sheet has been issued submits that, though, the petitioner has filed a detailed repl impugned charge Rather, on account of pendency released in favour of the petitioner, thereby severely impacting He places reliance upon CWP-16150 submit that taking into consideration the State of Punjab, costs of Rs.1,00,000/ 3. 27499-2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Vishal Gupta Versus State of Punjab and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Mr. Ganesh Ashok Khemka, Advocate, Ms. Samya Shangari, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (Oral) The petitioner, by way of instant writ petition, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeks quashing of dated 03.12.2024 (Annexure P-4), which has been served upon him, post his retirement, in an apparent violation of Rule Services Rules, Volume II, 1970. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that sheet has been issued, qua a decade old submits that, though, the petitioner has filed a detailed repl impugned charge-sheet, no final decision thereon has been taken till date. Rather, on account of pendency thereof released in favour of the petitioner, thereby severely impacting He places reliance upon an order dated 10.07.2025, drawn in 16150-2022 (Sukhdev Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others) submit that, a Coordinate Bench of this Court taking into consideration the very object of the State of Punjab, allowed the writ petition, and saddled the State with costs of Rs.1,00,000/-. Notice of motion. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-27499-2025 Date of decision: 16.09.2025 ….Petitioner ….Respondents KULDEEP TIWARI Mr. Ganesh Ashok Khemka, Advocate, (Through VC) Ms. Samya Shangari, Advocate, The petitioner, by way of instant writ petition, under Articles seeks quashing of the charge-sheet 4), which has been served upon him, post apparent violation of Rule 2.2(b) of the Punjab Civil earned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned a decade old incident. He further submits that, though, the petitioner has filed a detailed reply to the sheet, no final decision thereon has been taken till date. thereof, retiral benefits are not being released in favour of the petitioner, thereby severely impacting his rights. an order dated 10.07.2025, drawn in 2022 (Sukhdev Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others), to , a Coordinate Bench of this Court, in an identical situation, very object of the Litigation Policy of the allowed the writ petition, and saddled the State with 5 The petitioner, by way of instant writ petition, under Articles sheet 4), which has been served upon him, post 2.2(b) of the Punjab Civil the impugned . He further y to the sheet, no final decision thereon has been taken till date. , retiral benefits are not being rights. an order dated 10.07.2025, drawn in , to in an identical situation, f the allowed the writ petition, and saddled the State with AMIT KUMAR 2025.09.18 09:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-274 4. Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondents Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate, along with Mr. Gaurav Rana, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.3 and 4, 5. no objection, concerned to take the charge 6. the instant writ petition is disciplinary autho decision on the reply submitted by the petitioner to sheet, within a period of four weeks from the date of passing of the order, after granting him 7. authorities concerned shall take into consideration the submissions made in the reply (supra) event, the disciplinary authority concerned comes to a conclusion that the impugned charge benefits shall be disbursed to the petitioner, forthwith. 16.09.202 Ak Sharma 27499-2025 -2- Mr. Sahil R. Bakshi, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondents Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate, along with Mr. Gaurav Rana, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.3 and 4, At the outset, learned State counsel no objection, in case, a Mandamus is concerned to take the charge-sheet to its logical end, In view of the position narrated in the preceding paragraphs the instant writ petition is disposed of, disciplinary authority, which is seized of the matter, decision on the reply submitted by the petitioner to sheet, within a period of four weeks from the date of passing of the order, granting him due opportunity of hearing. Needless to assert that before arriving at any decision, the authorities concerned shall take into consideration the submissions made in the reply (supra), as well as in the petition at hand. event, the disciplinary authority concerned comes to a conclusion that the impugned charge-sheet is liable to be dropped, the requisite retiral benefits shall be disbursed to the petitioner, forthwith. .2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Mr. Sahil R. Bakshi, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2, and Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate, along with Mr. Gaurav Rana, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.3 and 4, and waives service. At the outset, learned State counsel fairly submits that he has a Mandamus is issued upon the authorities logical end, most expeditiously. In view of the position narrated in the preceding paragraphs, disposed of, with a Mandamus upon the , which is seized of the matter, to take a final decision on the reply submitted by the petitioner to the impugned charge- sheet, within a period of four weeks from the date of passing of the order, due opportunity of hearing. that before arriving at any decision, the authorities concerned shall take into consideration the submissions made as well as in the petition at hand. Further, in the event, the disciplinary authority concerned comes to a conclusion that the to be dropped, the requisite retiral benefits shall be disbursed to the petitioner, forthwith. (KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE Yes Yes/No Mr. Sahil R. Bakshi, learned Assistant Advocate General, No.1 and 2, and , submits that he has issued upon the authorities , with a Mandamus upon the to take a final - sheet, within a period of four weeks from the date of passing of the order, that before arriving at any decision, the authorities concerned shall take into consideration the submissions made n the event, the disciplinary authority concerned comes to a conclusion that the to be dropped, the requisite retiral AMIT KUMAR 2025.09.18 09:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document