CWP-13314 IN TH 278 Arun Kumar Punjab State CORAM: Present : HARPREET 1. of the Consti nature of cer dated 07.02.2 provisions o Punishment a in the nature pension sinc interest @18 31.10.2023 t Punjab and o 1 314-2025 N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGA Date of umar VERSUS State Power Corporation Limited and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA Mr. Sukhandeep Singh, Advocat Ms. Jyotnoor Sethi, Advocate th REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) The present writ petition has be Constitution of India for issuance of a certiorari for quashing and setting 07.02.2025 (Annexure P-5) passed b ons of Punjab Civil Services Rule ment and Appeal Regulation, 1971. F ature of mandamus directing the resp n since 31.10.2023 and other pensi t @18% on the delayed payment fr 023 till its realization in terms of and others (1997) 117 PLR 6. NJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH ate of Decision: October 29, 2025 CWP-13314-2025 .....Petitioner SUS ed and others ...Responden HARPREET SINGH BRAR dvocate for the petitioner. the respondents. been filed under Article 226/227 ce of a writ, order or direction in the etting aside the impugned order/ letter ssed by respondent No.3 against the s Rules and the PSEB Employees 971. Further, for issuance of the writ e respondents to release the arrears of pensionary emoluments along with ent from the date of retirement i.e. s of “A.S. Randhawa Vs. State of 2025 itioner ondents 6/227 in the / letter st the loyees e writ ars of with nt i.e. e of PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.31 12:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-13314 2. claim of the p ground that 07.02.2025 (A took voluntar A charge-she P-2). A perio proceedings i petitioner is a his retiral ben of delay, the disciplinary p despatch and Prem Nath B The petitione for which no the swift disp 3. Corporation o sheet issued a terms of Rule Chapter II, th benefits of t against such e 2 314-2025 Learned counsel for the petition f the petitioner for release of his retira that there is pending charge-sheet 025 (Annexure P-5). Learned counse oluntary retirement from the responde sheet was served upon the petitio period of more than two years ha dings initiated against the petitioner ha er is alleged to have caused pecuniar ral benefits are much more than alleg y, the disciplinary proceedings stand inary proceedings are required to be ch and relies upon the judgment of Ho ath Bali Versus Registrar, High Cou titioner is entitled for all admissible r no fault can be fastened upon the ift disposal of the disciplinary proceedi On the other hand, learned ation opposes the prayer of the petitio ssued against the petitioner is still pen f Rule 2.2(b) and (c) of the Punjab C r II, the respondents are well within th s of the petitioner, if any, discipli such employee. petitioner inter alia contends that the s retiral dues has been rejected on the sheet against him vide order dated ounsel further submits that petitioner spondent-Corporation on 31.10.2023. petitioner on 10.10.2023 (Annexure ars has elapsed, but the disciplinary ner have not made any headway. The cuniary loss of Rs.9,92,404/- whereas alleged loss. As such, on the ground stand vitiated. It is trite law that the to be concluded within a reasonable Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Court of Delhi and another, 2015 sible retiral dues on account of delay n the petitioner in causing hurdles in oceedings. arned counsel for the respondent ioner and submits that the charge ill pending. He further submits that in njab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, ithin their right to withhold the retiral isciplinary proceedings are pending at the on the dated itioner .2023. exure linary The hereas round at the nable sed in 015. delay les in ndent- harge that in me II, retiral nding PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.31 12:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-13314 4. parties and a that a charge than two year proceedings. 5. Punjab v. Ch B.P Jeevan R “10. N of five whethe case. conduc discove consid Such d is thus of pro fides unexpl But ho given c delin interdi factors the tot in a p favour 6. Nath Bali vs of 2010 whil 3 314-2025 Having heard the submissions m and after perusing the record with th charge-sheet was served upon the peti o years had elapsed but no progress ha dings. A Two Judge Bench of the Hon v. Chaman Lal Goyal 1995(2) SCC evan Reddy observed that, 0. Now remains the question of dela five and a half years in serving ether the said delay warranted th It is trite to say that such dis nducted soon after the irregularitie scovering the irregularities. They ca nsiderable time. It would not be ch delay also makes the task of pro thus not also in the interest of adm proceedings is bound to give room es and misuse of power. If th explained, the court may well inte t how long a delay is too long alwa ven case. Moreover, if such delay is linquent officer in defending him terdicted. Wherever such a plea is ra ctors appearing for and against the s e totality of circumstances. In other a process of balancing. Now, let vour of the respondent. ……” A Two Judge Bench of the Ho li vs. Registrar, High Court of Delh while speaking through Justice Ab ions made by learned counsel for the ith their able assistance, it transpires he petitioner on 10.10.2023 and more ress has been made in the disciplinary Hon’ble Supreme court in State of SCC 570 Speaking through Justice delay. There is undoubtedly a delay ving the charges. The question is d the quashing of charges in this h disciplinary proceeding must be arities are committed or soon after ey cannot be initiated after lapse of be fair to the delinquent officer. f proving the charges difficult and f administration. Delayed initiation room for allegations of bias, mala f the delay is too long and is l interfere and quash the charges. lways depends upon the facts of the ay is likely to cause prejudice to the himself, the enquiry has to be is raised, the court has to weigh the the said plea and take a decision on ther words, the court has to indulge let us see what are the factors in (emphasis added) the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prem Delhi and Anr. 2015 CWP No. 958 ice Abhay Manohar Sapre, made the or the spires more linary te of ustice elay n is this t be after se of icer. and tion ala d is ges. f the the be the n on ulge s in dded) rem 958 de the PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.31 12:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-13314 following obs “31) T the em the del by taki under all the conclu loss an 32) As the in becaus the del ventila conclu 33) Ke that ev endeav initiate by giv should not po causes should depend a year. 7. disciplinary causes menta charges are p abnormal an delinquent is non-availabil effectively. W 4 314-2025 ing observations, 1) Time and again, this Court has e e employer to ensure that the depart e delinquent employee is concluded w taking priority measures. In cases der suspension during the pendency l the more imperative for the employ ncluded in the shortest possible tim ss and prejudice to the rights of the d ) As a matter of experience, we often e inquiry, the issue involved there cause if the findings of the inquiry e delinquent employee, he invariabl ntilate his grievance, which again nclusion. ) Keeping these factors in mind, we every employer (whether State o deavor to conclude the departmen itiated against the delinquent empl giving priority to such proceedin ould be concluded within six month t possible for the employer to concl uses arising in the proceedings wit ould be made to conclude within pending upon the cause and the natu year.” Every delinquent employee ha inary proceedings concluded exped mental agony, financial hardship, and s are proven. This is considered a puni al and remains unexplained by the ent is presumed. The employee may ailability of witnesses, fading mem ely. While serious charges may w has emphasized that it is the duty of partmental inquiry initiated against ded within the shortest possible time ases where the delinquent is placed ency of such inquiry then it becomes ployer to ensure that the inquiry is e time to avoid any inconvenience, the delinquent employee. often notice that after completion of therein does not come to an end uiry proceedings have gone against riably pursues the issue in Court to gain consumes time for its final d, we are of the considered opinion ate or private) must make sincere tmental inquiry proceedings once employee within a reasonable time eedings and as far as possible it onths as an outer limit. Where it is onclude due to certain unavoidable s within the time frame then efforts ithin reasonably extended period nature of inquiry but not more than (emphasis added) yee has a legitimate right to have expeditiously. Undue prolongation ip, and social stigma, even before the a punishment in itself. When delay is by the department, prejudice to the e may suffer from loss of evidence, memory, and inability to defend ay warrant continuation, prolonged ty of inst time aced mes ry is nce, n of end inst rt to final nion cere once time le it it is able forts riod than dded) have gation re the elay is to the dence, efend onged PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.31 12:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-13314 delay withou proceedings. 8. unnecessary disciplinary accountability system. A la administratio cannot be pe an employee 9. the case, the are directed t months from 10. disposed of. October 29 P.C 5 314-2025 without justification tilts the balan dings. The employer must conduct pro ssary delay. Protracted enquiries inary mechanism, instead of ensur tability they breed inefficiency, dem . A lack of seriousness in pursuing stration and may indicate malice or be permitted to keep the sword of di loyee indefinitely. In view of the above, without c the writ petition is disposed of. Re ected to conclude the disciplinary proc from the date of receipt of certified co Pending miscellaneous applicat ed of. 29, 2025 Whether speaking/reasone Whether Reportable. : balance in favor of quashing the ct proceedings diligently and without iries defeat the very purpose of ensuring efficiency, integrity, and , demoralization, and distrust in the suing charges reflects poorly on the ce or oblique motives, the employer of disciplinary action dangling over thout commenting upon the merits of Respondents/competent authority y proceedings within a period of three ified copy of this order. plication(s), if any, shall also stands (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE easoned. : Yes/No Yes/No g the thout se of , and in the n the ployer over rits of hority f three stands RAR) PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.31 12:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document