CWP-18004 IN TH 212 Tara Chand Board of Dire CORAM: Present : HARPREET 1. Constitution order in the (Annexure P of deduction 10.04.2020 ( petitioner wa 1 004-2020 N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGA CWP-18 Date of hand Kansal VERSUS of Directors, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vi HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advoca Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Puneet Jindal, Sr. Advocate for the respondents. **** REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) The present writ petition has bee tution of India with a prayer for issu n the nature of certiorari for quashi ure P-7) vide which the petitioner ha uction of 5% month pension and fu 020 (Annexure P-9) vide which t ner was dismissed and be granted all co NJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH 18004-2020 ate of Decision: December 10, 2025 .....Petitioner SUS ijli Vitran Nigam Limited and another ...Responden E HARPREET SINGH BRAR dvocate with Mr. Sandeep Dhull ocate with Ms. Fiza Arora, Advocate as been filed under Article 226 of the or issuance of an appropriate writ or quashing the order dated 29.11.2019 has been awarded the punishment nd further to quash the order dated hich the statutory appeal filed by d all consequential benefits. itioner nother ondents Dhull, ocate of the rit or .2019 hment dated d by PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.18 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-18004 2. that the pet (Annexure P essential for However, th have they dis petitioner. D authority pr (Annexure P monthly pens order withou petitioner an arbitrary, ille Consequently irregularities contended tha did not consi rejected the a 3. Gupta, who i out of identi lenient appro increment w However, no 2 004-2020 Learned senior counsel for the e petitioner was issued a show- ure P-5). In response thereto, the petit al for enabling him to file an effec er, the respondents neither supplied ey disputed the fact that such docum ner. Despite the non-supply of thes ity proceeded to pass the punishm ure P-7), imposing a penalty of deduc ly pension for the remainder of his life ithout furnishing the relevant docum ner an adequate opportunity to file a d ry, illegal, and in clear violation of th uently, the impugned order (Annex arities and is liable to be set aside on ded that the appellate authority, while t consider or discuss the specific groun d the appeal in a cryptic and mechanic Learned Senior Counsel further who is senior to the petitioner, was se identical allegations. In his case, the approach and modified the penalt ent without cumulative effect, wh er, no such parity or leniency was exte or the petitioner, inter alia, submits -cause notice dated 19.08.2019 e petitioner sought certain documents effective and comprehensive reply. pplied the requested documents nor ocuments were indeed sought by the f these documents, the disciplinary unishment order dated 29.11.2019 deduction of 5% from the petitioner’s his life. The passing of the impugned documents and without providing the ile a detailed reply renders the action n of the principles of natural justice. (Annexure P-7) suffers from patent ide on this ground alone. It is further while dismissing the statutory appeal, c grounds raised by the petitioner and hanical manner. further submits that one Sh. Mukesh was served with a charge-sheet arising se, the appellate authority adopted a penalty to stoppage of one annual t, which is a minor punishment. as extended to the petitioner, resulting bmits .2019 ments reply. ts nor by the linary .2019 oner’s ugned g the action ustice. patent urther ppeal, er and ukesh rising pted a nnual ment. ulting PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.18 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-18004 in discrimina conclusive fi the punishm impermissibl petitioner is s 3410-2017, G 08.02.2023. 4. that the proc Rules was d allegations, a duly supplied Therefore, th documents is façade of vio afforded suff further conten his statutory therein, is wh Counsel refe undertook de by the petitio the plea of pa competent au 3 004-2020 riminatory treatment. It is further arg sive finding that the respondent(s)-N nishment of 5% cut in pension issible in law. Learned senior counsel ner is squarely covered by the judgmen 17, Gurcharan Singh Vs. State of P 023. Per contra, learned Senior Coun e procedure prescribed under the app was duly followed in its true letter ions, along with the relevant docume pplied to the petitioner prior to the pa ore, the ground raised by the petiti ents is factually incorrect and has b of violation of the principles of natu d sufficient time and adequate oppo contended that the argument advanced tutory appeal was rejected without con , is wholly misplaced. To substantiate el refers to Annexure R-1 and submi ook detailed deliberations and, after c petitioner in the appeal, arrived at a re a of parity with his senior, Sh. Mukes tent authority had disagreed with the er argued that in the absence of any Nigam suffered a financial loss, nsion is wholly unwarranted and ounsel further submits that the case of dgment passed by this Court in LPA of Punjab and others, decided on r Counsel for the respondents submits e applicable Punishment and Appeal letter and spirit. The summary of ocuments and list of witnesses, was the passing of the punishment order. petitioner regarding non-supply of has been taken merely to create a of natural justice. The petitioner was opportunity to defend himself. It is vanced by the petitioner, alleging that ut consideration of the grounds raised ntiate this submission, learned Senior submits that the Board of Directors after considering all the issues raised at a reasoned decision. With regard to ukesh Gupta, it is submitted that the th the Inquiry Officer’s report in the f any l loss, and ase of PA- ed on bmits ppeal ry of , was order. ly of eate a r was . It is g that raised Senior ectors raised ard to at the in the PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.18 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-18004 said case, rec one charge. S with cumulat cumulative e a show-cause notice only fo is unfounded 5. pursued the r 6. conclusive fi resulted in a severe penalt life. In the ab punishment Court in Ram punishment m charged. 7. limited. It is Article 226 o disciplinary illegality, or that the findin 4 004-2020 se, recorded its dissent, and imposed p arge. Subsequently, in appeal, the pena umulative effect was modified to wit tive effect. It is further submitted that cause notice for grave misconduct, S only for minor allegations. Therefore, unded and untenable. I have heard the learned cou d the records with their able assistance It transpires that respondents ha sive finding or material to demonstra d in a quantifiable financial loss to t penalty, impacting the financial secu the absence of a finding of actual loss ment appears prima facie disproport Rama Kant Misra v. State of U.P. ment must always be commensurate The scope of interference in d . It is settled law that this Court may 226 of the Constitution of India wh inary action are arbitrary, disproporti ty, or manifest prejudice. The Court findings are justified by the material osed punishment only with respect to e penalty of withholding of increment to withholding of increment without ed that while the petitioner was issued duct, Sh. Mukesh Gupta was issued a efore, the claim of parity in treatment d counsel for both the parties and stance. nts have failed to place on record any onstrate that the alleged misconduct ss to the Nigam. A pension cut is a al security of a retired employee for al loss or wrongful gain, such a harsh roportionate. The Hon’ble Supreme .P. (1982) 3 SCC 346 held that the urate with the gravity of the offence e in disciplinary proceedings is very ay only exercise its powers under dia when the findings recorded in a roportionate, tainted with procedural Court must confine itself to ensuring terial on record, the proceedings were ect to ement ithout issued sued a tment s and rd any nduct t is a ee for harsh preme at the ffence s very under d in a edural ring s were PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.18 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-18004 conducted in justice, and th 8. Tewari vs. U Chauhan, ma “ 29. SCC ( observ (1987) 1987 punish interfe Thakur (1987) that a interfe punish cases, could compa 9. Hon’ble Supr (1997) 3 SC following obs “20. A such c therein 5 004-2020 ted in compliance with prescribed pro , and the penalty imposed is proportion A Two-Judge Bench of the H s. Union of India, (2013) 6 SCC 60 an, made the following observations in 29. In Union of India v. R.K. Shar C (Cri) 767 : AIR 2001 SC 305 servations made in Ranjit Thakur [R 987) 4 SCC 611 : 1988 SCC (L&S 87 SC 2386] observing that if th nishment was harsh or strikingly dis terference. However, the said observ akur v. Union of India, (1987) 4 S 987) 5 ATC 113 : AIR 1987 SC 238 at a court can, while exercising terfere with the punishment mer nishment to be disproportionate. It ses, which on their face, show pe uld be judicial review and courts s mpassionate grounds.” Further reliance may be placed le Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corpn 3 SCC 72 while speaking through J ing observation, 0. At the outset, it needs to be me ch cases of departmental enquiri erein does not exercise the powers o ed procedure and principles of natural ortionate to the misconduct. he Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.R. C 602, speaking through Justice B.S ions in this regard: Sharma [(2001) 9 SCC 592 : 2002 3053] , this Court explained the ur [Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, L&S) 1 : (1987) 5 ATC 113 : AIR if the charge was ridiculous, the y disproportionate it would warrant servations in Ranjit Thakur [Ranjit 4 SCC 611 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 1 : 2386] are not to be taken to mean ing the power of judicial review, merely because it considers the It was held that only in extreme w perversity or irrationality, there rts should not interfere merely on laced on a Three Judge bench of the orpn. Ltd. v. Ashok Kumar Arora ugh Justice S.P. Kurdukar made the mentioned that the High Court in uiries and the findings recorded rs of appellate court/authority. The atural S.R. e B.S 002 the dia, AIR the rant anjit ) 1 : ean iew, the eme here y on of the ora, de the rt in rded The PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.18 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-18004 jurisdi instanc becaus reason the pu of an had se these d this to AIR 19 Venkat SCR 5 SCC 7 v. Unio 23 ATC 10. responsible o appropriate t met if the pu purpose of ce 11. impugned or deduction of petitioner’s li 5% from the issuance of 6 004-2020 risdiction of the High Court in s stance where it is found that the cause of non-observance of princip asonable opportunity; findings are e punishment is totally disproportio an employee. There is a catena of d settled the law on this topic and i ese decisions. Suffice it to refer to a is topic viz. State of A.P. v. S. Sree R 1963 SC 1723 : (1964) 2 LLJ nkata Rao [(1975) 2 SCC 557 : 19 R 521] , Corpn. of the City of Na C 714 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 455 : (198 Union of India [(1992) 4 SCC 711 ATC 382 : AIR 1992 SC 1981] .” However, keeping in view the sible officer and some lapse may ha riate to quash the entire proceedings. the punishment is modified to a prop e of censure without being unduly hars Accordingly, the present writ p ned order dated 29.11.2019 (Annexu ion of 5% from the monthly pens ner’s life is modified to the extent of im m the monthly pension for a period of e of the original order (i.e., 29. in such cases is very limited for t the domestic enquiry is vitiated inciples of natural justice, denial of are based on no evidence, and/or ortionate to the proved misconduct a of judgments of this Court which nd it is not necessary to refer to all to a few decisions of this Court on ree Rama Rao [(1964) 3 SCR 25 : LJ 150] , State of A.P. v. Chitra : 1975 SCC (L&S) 349 : (1976) 1 f Nagpur v. Ramchandra [(1981) 2 (1981) 3 SCR 22] and Nelson Motis 711 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 13 : (1993) w the fact that the petitioner was a ay have occurred, it would not be dings. The ends of justice would be a proportionate one, which serves the ly harsh. it petition is partly allowed. The nnexure P-7) imposing a penalty of pension for the remainder of the nt of imposing penalty of deduction of riod of five (5) years from the date of ., 29.11.2019) is substituted. The for ated al of d/or duct hich o all t on 25 : itra 6) 1 1) 2 otis 993) was a ot be ld be es the . The lty of f the ion of ate of . The PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.18 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-18004 consequentia extent. Furth petitioner wi order. 12. disposed of. December 10 P.C 7 004-2020 uential order dated 10.04.2020 (Annex Further, refund any excess amount if ner within a period of six weeks of re Pending miscellaneous applicat ed of. 10, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned. : Whether Reportable. : Annexure P-9) is also set aside to this unt if it has been recovered from the s of receiving a certified copy of this plication(s), if any, shall also stands (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No to this m the f this stands RAR) PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.18 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document