CWP-8989-2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 268 VEER BHAN HARYANA SHEHRI VIKAS PRADHIKARAN & ANR. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET Present: Mr. RK Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Samrat Malik, Advocate and Mr. Kartikey Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Arun Kumar Singla, Asst. AG Haryana. Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate for the respondents. HARPREET 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the nature of order dated 10.05.2023 (P Panchkula has imposed the pen of the petitioner and further quashing of order dated 15.02.2024 (P vide which statutory revision filed by the petitioner against the above said order has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner the impugned orders dated 10.05.2023 (Annexure P 15.02.2024 (Annexure P 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP Date of Decision: 09.09.2025 VEER BHAN VERSUS HARYANA SHEHRI VIKAS PRADHIKARAN & ANR. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET Mr. RK Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Samrat Malik, Advocate and Mr. Kartikey Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Arun Kumar Singla, Asst. AG Haryana. Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate for the respondents. HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the nature of order dated 10.05.2023 (P-9) by which Chief Administrator HSVP, Panchkula has imposed the penalty of 10% permanent cut in pension of the petitioner and further quashing of order dated 15.02.2024 (P vide which statutory revision filed by the petitioner against the above said order has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner the impugned orders dated 10.05.2023 (Annexure P 15.02.2024 (Annexure P-11), which impose and uphold a penalty of -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-8989-2024 Date of Decision: 09.09.2025 ….PETITIONER HARYANA SHEHRI VIKAS PRADHIKARAN & ANR. ….RSPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. RK Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Samrat Malik, Advocate and Mr. Kartikey Chaudhary, Advocate Mr. Arun Kumar Singla, Asst. AG Haryana. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the nature of certiorari for quashing the 9) by which Chief Administrator HSVP, alty of 10% permanent cut in pension of the petitioner and further quashing of order dated 15.02.2024 (P-11) vide which statutory revision filed by the petitioner against the above- Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the impugned orders dated 10.05.2023 (Annexure P-9) and 11), which impose and uphold a penalty of - Date of Decision: 09.09.2025 ….PETITIONER ….RSPONDENTS The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of for quashing the 9) by which Chief Administrator HSVP, alty of 10% permanent cut in pension 11) - contends that 9) and 11), which impose and uphold a penalty of NAINA KATHIAT 2025.09.17 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-8989-2024 10% permanent cut in pension, are patently illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the principles of natural justice. foundation of the impugned action is the two charge 24.09.2014 and 12.01.2017, which had previously formed the basis for the petitioner's compulsory retirement , an order that was stayed and effectively quashed by th being stigmatic. To punish the petitioner again on the identical set of charges constitutes a clear case of double jeopardy. Counsel further asserts that the charge matter, stands completely demolished by the testimony of the prosecution's own witness, Sh. Ram Chander (Annexure P admitted that the information sought did not pertain to the petitioner. Regarding the charge petitioner acted strictly in accordance with approved plans and procedures, a fact supported by the detailed sequence of events explained in his replies, which were not considered by the authorities. A grave legal infirmity pointed out is the revisi on the petitioner’s past conduct specifically, seven charge never resulted in punishment and an incident from the year 2000 where the petitioner was honourably acquitted by a criminal court, without issuing any prior n which is a blatant violation of the law settled in State of U.P. (2010) 4 SCT 600. superannuated on 31.03.2019, has been denied his pension and other retiral benefits, including annual increments stopped without any order 2024 10% permanent cut in pension, are patently illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the principles of natural justice. foundation of the impugned action is the two charge 24.09.2014 and 12.01.2017, which had previously formed the basis for the petitioner's compulsory retirement , an order that was stayed and effectively quashed by this Hon'ble Court in CWP No. 7467 of 2017, being stigmatic. To punish the petitioner again on the identical set of charges constitutes a clear case of double jeopardy. Counsel further asserts that the charge-sheet dated 24.09.2014, pertaining to an RTI er, stands completely demolished by the testimony of the prosecution's own witness, Sh. Ram Chander (Annexure P admitted that the information sought did not pertain to the petitioner. Regarding the charge-sheet dated 12.01.2017, it is submitted th petitioner acted strictly in accordance with approved plans and procedures, a fact supported by the detailed sequence of events explained in his replies, which were not considered by the authorities. A grave legal infirmity pointed out is the revisi on the petitioner’s past conduct specifically, seven charge never resulted in punishment and an incident from the year 2000 where the petitioner was honourably acquitted by a criminal court, without issuing any prior notice or providing an opportunity to explain, which is a blatant violation of the law settled in State of U.P. (2010) 4 SCT 600. Additionally, the petitioner, who superannuated on 31.03.2019, has been denied his pension and other l benefits, including annual increments stopped without any order 10% permanent cut in pension, are patently illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the principles of natural justice. It is argued that the very foundation of the impugned action is the two charge-sheets dated 24.09.2014 and 12.01.2017, which had previously formed the basis for the petitioner's compulsory retirement , an order that was stayed and is Hon'ble Court in CWP No. 7467 of 2017, being stigmatic. To punish the petitioner again on the identical set of charges constitutes a clear case of double jeopardy. Counsel further sheet dated 24.09.2014, pertaining to an RTI er, stands completely demolished by the testimony of the prosecution's own witness, Sh. Ram Chander (Annexure P-12), who admitted that the information sought did not pertain to the petitioner. sheet dated 12.01.2017, it is submitted that the petitioner acted strictly in accordance with approved plans and procedures, a fact supported by the detailed sequence of events explained in his replies, which were not considered by the authorities. A grave legal infirmity pointed out is the revisional authority's reliance on the petitioner’s past conduct specifically, seven charge-sheets that never resulted in punishment and an incident from the year 2000 where the petitioner was honourably acquitted by a criminal court, otice or providing an opportunity to explain, which is a blatant violation of the law settled in Mohd. Yunus Khan v. Additionally, the petitioner, who superannuated on 31.03.2019, has been denied his pension and other l benefits, including annual increments stopped without any order 10% permanent cut in pension, are patently illegal, arbitrary, and It is argued that the very sheets dated 24.09.2014 and 12.01.2017, which had previously formed the basis for the petitioner's compulsory retirement , an order that was stayed and is Hon'ble Court in CWP No. 7467 of 2017, being stigmatic. To punish the petitioner again on the identical set of charges constitutes a clear case of double jeopardy. Counsel further sheet dated 24.09.2014, pertaining to an RTI er, stands completely demolished by the testimony of the 12), who admitted that the information sought did not pertain to the petitioner. at the petitioner acted strictly in accordance with approved plans and procedures, a fact supported by the detailed sequence of events explained in his replies, which were not considered by the authorities. onal authority's reliance sheets that never resulted in punishment and an incident from the year 2000 where the petitioner was honourably acquitted by a criminal court, otice or providing an opportunity to explain, Mohd. Yunus Khan v. Additionally, the petitioner, who superannuated on 31.03.2019, has been denied his pension and other l benefits, including annual increments stopped without any order NAINA KATHIAT 2025.09.17 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-8989-2024 since 2015, his due 2nd and 3rd ACP benefits from 2006 and 2016 respectively, and promotion to the post of Sub from the date his junior was promoted on 14.12.2017, solely basis of these untenable charges. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned orders be quashed and all consequential benefits be released with interest. 3. Per contra submits that there is a due refer inferable from the paper book that past conduct of the petitioner that ‘the delinquent was charge occasions and placed under suspension twice in his service career. He was also caught amounting to Rs.10,000/ 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 5. The scope of judicial review narrow and confined to examining whether the inquiry was conducted by a competent authority, followed the prescribed procedure, adhered to principles of natural justice, and whether the findings are based on some evidence or are authority to re placed on a Two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court vs. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610 Kurian Joseph, 2024 since 2015, his due 2nd and 3rd ACP benefits from 2006 and 2016 respectively, and promotion to the post of Sub from the date his junior was promoted on 14.12.2017, solely basis of these untenable charges. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned orders be quashed and all consequential benefits be released with interest. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that there is a due reference in the show cause notice as inferable from the paper book that past conduct of the petitioner that ‘the delinquent was charge-sheeted under Rule 7 in seven occasions and placed under suspension twice in his service career. He was also caught red handed on 16.09.2000 while taking gratification amounting to Rs.10,000/- while posted in the Public Dealing seat.’ I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. The scope of judicial review narrow and confined to examining whether the inquiry was conducted by a competent authority, followed the prescribed procedure, adhered to principles of natural justice, and whether the findings are based on some evidence or are perverse. The Court cannot act as an appellate authority to re-appreciate evidence. Reliance in this regard may be placed on a Two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court vs. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610 Kurian Joseph, made the following observations in this regard: since 2015, his due 2nd and 3rd ACP benefits from 2006 and 2016 respectively, and promotion to the post of Sub-Divisional Engineer from the date his junior was promoted on 14.12.2017, solely on the basis of these untenable charges. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned orders be quashed and all consequential benefits be , learned counsel appearing for the respondents ence in the show cause notice as inferable from the paper book that past conduct of the petitioner that sheeted under Rule 7 in seven occasions and placed under suspension twice in his service career. He red handed on 16.09.2000 while taking gratification while posted in the Public Dealing seat.’ I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. The scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters is narrow and confined to examining whether the inquiry was conducted by a competent authority, followed the prescribed procedure, adhered to principles of natural justice, and whether the findings are based on perverse. The Court cannot act as an appellate appreciate evidence. Reliance in this regard may be placed on a Two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court Union of India vs. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610 speaking through Justice made the following observations in this regard: since 2015, his due 2nd and 3rd ACP benefits from 2006 and 2016 Divisional Engineer on the basis of these untenable charges. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned orders be quashed and all consequential benefits be , learned counsel appearing for the respondents ence in the show cause notice as inferable from the paper book that past conduct of the petitioner that sheeted under Rule 7 in seven occasions and placed under suspension twice in his service career. He red handed on 16.09.2000 while taking gratification I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and in disciplinary matters is narrow and confined to examining whether the inquiry was conducted by a competent authority, followed the prescribed procedure, adhered to principles of natural justice, and whether the findings are based on perverse. The Court cannot act as an appellate appreciate evidence. Reliance in this regard may be Union of India speaking through Justice NAINA KATHIAT 2025.09.17 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-8989-2024 “12. Despite the well not that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence before the e by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High C Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of the evidence. can only see whether: (a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority; (b) the enquiry is held accor prescribed in that behalf; (c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings; (d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to evidence and merits of the case; (e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations; (f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion; (g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence; (h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding; (i) the 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 (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 i shocks its conscience.” Reliance in this regard may also be made to the judgments rendered in B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 2024 “12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to not that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of the evidence. can only see whether: (a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority; (b) the enquiry is held accor prescribed in that behalf; (c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings; (d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to evidence and merits of the case; (e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations; (f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion; (g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence; (h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding; (i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence. 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 (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.” Reliance in this regard may also be made to the judgments B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 settled position, it is painfully disturbing to not that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence nquiry officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of ourt, in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of the evidence. The High Court (a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority; (b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure (c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in (d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case; (e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations; (f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion; (g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence; (h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding; finding of fact is based on no evidence. 13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High (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 (vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to nto the proportionality of punishment unless it (emphasis added) Reliance in this regard may also be made to the judgments B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 settled position, it is painfully disturbing to not that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence nquiry officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of ourt, in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not The High Court ding to the procedure (c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in (d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching the (e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be (f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could (g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit (h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted (ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the (v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which (vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to nto the proportionality of punishment unless it Reliance in this regard may also be made to the judgments B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 NAINA KATHIAT 2025.09.17 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-8989-2024 and Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. vs. Ashok 72. 6. Furthermore, a two Court in S.R. Tewari vs. Union of India, (2013) 6 SCC 602 through Justice B.S Chauhan, made the following observations in this regard: “ 29. In Union of India v. R.K. Sharma [(2001) 9 SCC 592 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 767 : AIR 2001 SC 3053] , this Court explained the observations made in Ranjit Thakur [Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 611 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 1 : (1987) 5 ATC 113 : AIR 1 the punishment was harsh or strikingly disproportionate it would warrant interference. However, the said observations in Ranjit Thakur [Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 611 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 1 : (1987) 5 ATC 113 : AIR 1987 SC 2386] are not to be taken to mean that a court can, while exercising the power of judicial review, interfere with the punishment merely because it considers the punishment to be disproportionate. that onl perversity or irrationality, there could be judicial review and courts should not interfere merely on compassionate grounds. 30. The findings of fact recorded by a court can be held to be perverse if the findin excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant/inadmissible material. The finding may also be said to be perverse if it is “against the weight of evidence”, or if the finding so outrageously de from the vice of irrationality. If a decision is arrived at on the basis of no evidence or thoroughly unreliable evidence and no reasonable person would act upon it, the order would be perverse. acceptable and which could be relied upon, the conclusions would not be treated as perverse and the findings would not be interfered with. (Vide Rajinder Kumar Kindra v. Delhi Admn. [(1984) 4 SCC 635 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 131 : AIR 1984 SC 1805] , Kuldeep Singh v. Commr. of Police [(1999) 2 SCC 10 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 429 : AIR 1999 SC 677] , Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao v. State of A.P. [(2009) 10 SCC 636 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 372 : AIR 2010 SC 589] and Babu v. State of Kerala [(2010) 9 SCC 189 : (2010) 3 S 31. Hence, where there is evidence of malpractice, gross irregularity or illegality, interference is permissible 2024 Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. vs. Ashok Kumar Arora, (1997) 3 SCC Furthermore, a two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme S.R. Tewari vs. Union of India, (2013) 6 SCC 602 through Justice B.S Chauhan, made the following observations in this “ 29. In Union of India v. R.K. Sharma [(2001) 9 SCC 592 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 767 : AIR 2001 SC 3053] , this Court explained the observations made in Ranjit Thakur [Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 611 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 1 : (1987) 5 ATC 113 : AIR 1987 SC 2386] observing that if the charge was ridiculous, the punishment was harsh or strikingly disproportionate it would warrant interference. However, the said observations in Ranjit Thakur [Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 611 : 1988 L&S) 1 : (1987) 5 ATC 113 : AIR 1987 SC 2386] are not to be taken to mean that a court can, while exercising the power of judicial review, interfere with the punishment merely because it considers the punishment to be disproportionate. that only in extreme cases, which on their face, show perversity or irrationality, there could be judicial review and courts should not interfere merely on compassionate grounds. 30. The findings of fact recorded by a court can be held to be perverse if the findings have been arrived at by excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant/inadmissible material. The finding may also be said to be perverse if it is “against the weight of evidence”, or if the finding so outrageously de from the vice of irrationality. If a decision is arrived at on the basis of no evidence or thoroughly unreliable evidence and no reasonable person would act upon it, the order would be perverse. But if there is some evidence on reco acceptable and which could be relied upon, the conclusions would not be treated as perverse and the findings would not be interfered with. (Vide Rajinder Kumar Kindra v. Delhi Admn. [(1984) 4 SCC 635 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 131 : AIR 1984 SC 1805] , uldeep Singh v. Commr. of Police [(1999) 2 SCC 10 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 429 : AIR 1999 SC 677] , Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao v. State of A.P. [(2009) 10 SCC 636 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 372 : AIR 2010 SC 589] and Babu v. State of Kerala [(2010) 9 SCC 189 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1179] .) Hence, where there is evidence of malpractice, gross irregularity or illegality, interference is permissible Kumar Arora, (1997) 3 SCC Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme S.R. Tewari vs. Union of India, (2013) 6 SCC 602, speaking through Justice B.S Chauhan, made the following observations in this “ 29. In Union of India v. R.K. Sharma [(2001) 9 SCC 592 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 767 : AIR 2001 SC 3053] , this Court explained the observations made in Ranjit Thakur [Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 611 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 1 : (1987) 5 ATC 113 987 SC 2386] observing that if the charge was ridiculous, the punishment was harsh or strikingly disproportionate it would warrant interference. However, the said observations in Ranjit Thakur [Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 611 : 1988 L&S) 1 : (1987) 5 ATC 113 : AIR 1987 SC 2386] are not to be taken to mean that a court can, while exercising the power of judicial review, interfere with the punishment merely because it considers the punishment to be disproportionate. It was held y in extreme cases, which on their face, show perversity or irrationality, there could be judicial review and courts should not interfere merely on compassionate 30. The findings of fact recorded by a court can be held to be gs have been arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant/inadmissible material. The finding may also be said to be perverse if it is “against the weight of evidence”, or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality. If a decision is arrived at on the basis of no evidence or thoroughly unreliable evidence and no reasonable person would act upon it, the order would be But if there is some evidence on record which is acceptable and which could be relied upon, the conclusions would not be treated as perverse and the findings would not be interfered with. (Vide Rajinder Kumar Kindra v. Delhi Admn. [(1984) 4 SCC 635 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 131 : AIR 1984 SC 1805] , uldeep Singh v. Commr. of Police [(1999) 2 SCC 10 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 429 : AIR 1999 SC 677] , Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao v. State of A.P. [(2009) 10 SCC 636 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 372 : AIR 2010 SC 589] and Babu v. State of Kerala [(2010) 9 CC (Cri) 1179] .) Hence, where there is evidence of malpractice, gross irregularity or illegality, interference is permissible.” Kumar Arora, (1997) 3 SCC Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme , speaking through Justice B.S Chauhan, made the following observations in this “ 29. In Union of India v. R.K. Sharma [(2001) 9 SCC 592 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 767 : AIR 2001 SC 3053] , this Court explained the observations made in Ranjit Thakur [Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 611 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 1 : (1987) 5 ATC 113 987 SC 2386] observing that if the charge was ridiculous, the punishment was harsh or strikingly disproportionate it would warrant interference. However, the said observations in Ranjit Thakur [Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 611 : 1988 L&S) 1 : (1987) 5 ATC 113 : AIR 1987 SC 2386] are not to be taken to mean that a court can, while exercising the power of judicial review, interfere with the punishment merely because it It was held y in extreme cases, which on their face, show perversity or irrationality, there could be judicial review and courts should not interfere merely on compassionate 30. The findings of fact recorded by a court can be held to be ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant/inadmissible material. The finding may also be said to be perverse if it is “against the weight of evidence”, fies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality. If a decision is arrived at on the basis of no evidence or thoroughly unreliable evidence and no reasonable person would act upon it, the order would be rd which is acceptable and which could be relied upon, the conclusions would not be treated as perverse and the findings would not be interfered with. (Vide Rajinder Kumar Kindra v. Delhi Admn. [(1984) 4 SCC 635 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 131 : AIR 1984 SC 1805] , uldeep Singh v. Commr. of Police [(1999) 2 SCC 10 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 429 : AIR 1999 SC 677] , Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao v. State of A.P. [(2009) 10 SCC 636 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 372 : AIR 2010 SC 589] and Babu v. State of Kerala [(2010) 9 Hence, where there is evidence of malpractice, gross NAINA KATHIAT 2025.09.17 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-8989-2024 In terms of interference is warranted where capricious, or perverse" or where there is a "manifest error or illegality". A finding is perverse if it is based on no evidence, ignores relevant material, or considers irrelevant material. 7. Before applying the abov essential to reaffirm a fundamental principle of our judicial and quasi judicial process “the requirement of a reasoned order”. 8. A constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mukherjee v. Union of India Justice S.C Agrawal made the following observation, “40. For the reasons aforesaid, it must be concluded that except in cases where the requirement has been dispensed with expressly or by necessary implication, authority exercising judicial or quasi required to record the reasons for its decision.” Further a Two Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Dept. vs. Brothers, (2010) 4 SCC 785 s Kumar observed that, “12. At the cost of repetition, we may notice, that consistently taken the view that recording of reasons is an essential feature of dispensation of justice. A litigant who approaches the Court with any grievance in accordance with law is entitled to know the reasons for grant or rejection of Reasons are the soul of orders. Non could lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected party and secondly, more particularly, hamper the proper administration of justice. These 2024 In terms of S.R. Tewari vs. Union of India, (2013) 6 SCC 602 interference is warranted where the decision is "wholly arbitrary, capricious, or perverse" or where there is a "manifest error or illegality". A finding is perverse if it is based on no evidence, ignores relevant material, or considers irrelevant material. Before applying the above principles to the facts, it is essential to reaffirm a fundamental principle of our judicial and quasi judicial process “the requirement of a reasoned order”. A constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mukherjee v. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 594 Justice S.C Agrawal made the following observation, “40. For the reasons aforesaid, it must be concluded that except in cases where the requirement has been dispensed with expressly or by necessary implication, authority exercising judicial or quasi required to record the reasons for its decision.” Further a Two Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Dept. vs. Brothers, (2010) 4 SCC 785 speaking through Justice Kumar observed that, “12. At the cost of repetition, we may notice, that consistently taken the view that recording of reasons is an essential feature of dispensation of justice. A litigant who approaches the Court with any grievance in accordance with law is entitled to know the reasons for grant or rejection of Reasons are the soul of orders. Non could lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected party and secondly, more particularly, hamper the proper administration of justice. These (emphasis added) S.R. Tewari vs. Union of India, (2013) 6 SCC 602, the decision is "wholly arbitrary, capricious, or perverse" or where there is a "manifest error or illegality". A finding is perverse if it is based on no evidence, ignores relevant material, or considers irrelevant material. e principles to the facts, it is essential to reaffirm a fundamental principle of our judicial and quasi- judicial process “the requirement of a reasoned order”. A constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in S.N. , (1990) 4 SCC 594 speaking through Justice S.C Agrawal made the following observation, “40. For the reasons aforesaid, it must be concluded that except in cases where the requirement has been dispensed with expressly or by necessary implication, an administrative authority exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions is required to record the reasons for its decision.” (emphasis added) Further a Two Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Dept. vs. M/s Shukla & peaking through Justice Swatanter “12. At the cost of repetition, we may notice, that this Court has consistently taken the view that recording of reasons is an essential feature of dispensation of justice. A litigant who approaches the Court with any grievance in accordance with law is entitled to know the reasons for grant or rejection of his prayer. Reasons are the soul of orders. Non-recording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected party and secondly, more particularly, hamper the proper administration of justice. These (emphasis added) , the decision is "wholly arbitrary, capricious, or perverse" or where there is a "manifest error or illegality". A finding is perverse if it is based on no evidence, ignores e principles to the facts, it is - S.N. speaking through “40. For the reasons aforesaid, it must be concluded that except in cases where the requirement has been dispensed with strative judicial functions is Further a Two Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Shukla & Swatanter this Court has consistently taken the view that recording of reasons is an essential feature of dispensation of justice. A litigant who approaches the Court with any grievance in accordance with law his prayer. recording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected party and secondly, more particularly, hamper the proper administration of justice. These NAINA KATHIAT 2025.09.17 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-8989-2024 principles are n executive actions, but they apply with equal force and, in fact, with a greater degree of precision to judicial pronouncements. prejudice to the person against whom it is pronounced that litigant is unable to know the ground which weighed with the Court in rejecting his claim and also causes impediments in his taking adequate and appropriate grounds before the higher Court in the event of challenge to that judgment. Now, we may refer to certain judgments of this Court as well as of the High Courts which have taken this view.” 9. The conscience of the law is satisfied only when justice is not only done but is also seen to be done through the medium of recorded reasons. As held by the Constitution Bench in Mukherjee (supra) against arbitrary exercise of power. This principle applies with greater vigour to judicial and quasi (supra), this Court emphatically held that "reasons are the soul of orders" and that "non infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected party and secondly, more particularly, hamper the prope justice." Further, in SCC 519, the Apex Court crystallized the principle thus: "Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. Without the same, it becomes lifeless." An order without reasons the rule of law. 10. It transpires that the statement of the prosecution witness, Sh. Ram Chander (P information sought under the RTI application did not pertain to the 2024 principles are not only applicable to administrative or executive actions, but they apply with equal force and, in fact, with a greater degree of precision to judicial pronouncements. A judgment without reasons causes prejudice to the person against whom it is pronounced that litigant is unable to know the ground which weighed with the Court in rejecting his claim and also causes impediments in his taking adequate and appropriate grounds before the higher Court in the event of challenge to that judgment. Now, we may fer to certain judgments of this Court as well as of the High Courts which have taken this view.” The conscience of the law is satisfied only when justice is not only done but is also seen to be done through the medium of reasons. As held by the Constitution Bench in Mukherjee (supra), the requirement to record reasons is a vital check against arbitrary exercise of power. This principle applies with greater vigour to judicial and quasi-judicial orders. In , this Court emphatically held that "reasons are the soul of orders" and that "non-recording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected party and secondly, more particularly, hamper the prope justice." Further, in Raj Kishore Jha vs. State of Bihar, (2003) 11 , the Apex Court crystallized the principle thus: "Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. Without the same, it becomes lifeless." An order without reasons is anathema to a system of justice based on the rule of law. It transpires that the statement of the prosecution witness, Sh. Ram Chander (P-12), is unequivocal. He admits that the information sought under the RTI application did not pertain to the ot only applicable to administrative or executive actions, but they apply with equal force and, in fact, with a greater degree of precision to judicial A judgment without reasons causes prejudice to the person against whom it is pronounced, as that litigant is unable to know the ground which weighed with the Court in rejecting his claim and also causes impediments in his taking adequate and appropriate grounds before the higher Court in the event of challenge to that judgment. Now, we may fer to certain judgments of this Court as well as of the High (emphasis added) The conscience of the law is satisfied only when justice is not only done but is also seen to be done through the medium of reasons. As held by the Constitution Bench in S.N. , the requirement to record reasons is a vital check against arbitrary exercise of power. This principle applies with greater judicial orders. In M/s Shukla & Brothers , this Court emphatically held that "reasons are the soul of recording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected party and secondly, more particularly, hamper the proper administration of Raj Kishore Jha vs. State of Bihar, (2003) 11 , the Apex Court crystallized the principle thus: "Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. Without the same, it becomes lifeless." is anathema to a system of justice based on It transpires that the statement of the prosecution witness, 12), is unequivocal. He admits that the information sought under the RTI application did not pertain to the ot only applicable to administrative or executive actions, but they apply with equal force and, in fact, with a greater degree of precision to judicial A judgment without reasons causes as that litigant is unable to know the ground which weighed with the Court in rejecting his claim and also causes impediments in his taking adequate and appropriate grounds before the higher Court in the event of challenge to that judgment. Now, we may fer to certain judgments of this Court as well as of the High The conscience of the law is satisfied only when justice is not only done but is also seen to be done through the medium of S.N. , the requirement to record reasons is a vital check against arbitrary exercise of power. This principle applies with greater Brothers , this Court emphatically held that "reasons are the soul of recording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected party and r administration of Raj Kishore Jha vs. State of Bihar, (2003) 11 , the Apex Court crystallized the principle thus: "Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. Without the same, it becomes lifeless." is anathema to a system of justice based on It transpires that the statement of the prosecution witness, 12), is unequivocal. He admits that the information sought under the RTI application did not pertain to the NAINA KATHIAT 2025.09.17 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-8989-2024 petitioner. A charge that is not proven by the department's own evidence cannot form the basis for any punishment. The impugned orders, to the extent they rely on this charge, are unsustainable and are vitiated by perversity as they are based on no evidence. the allegation in the charge the petitioner has explained in the reply to show cause notice dated 09.05.2023 and also in the revision petition on the strength of the undisputed factual position that Sh. possession to the allottee on 14.10.2004 and thereafter, the allottee has filed a representation that he has been given lesser area. This representation was examined by the Estate Officer and the District Town Planner, Hisar and on communicated to the allottee that he can take possession on any working day. The petitioner was posted at Hisar upto 17.01.2008 and the allottee has never approached the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was tra HUDA, Hisar to Sirsa Division. It was only in the year 2014 that the allottee requested for taking over the physical possession. The petitioner has handed over the possession to the allottee in terms of effective order passed by the Chief Administrator, Department of Town and Country Planning, Panchkula. As such, the petitioner has played no role either in delaying or handing over the possession or rejecting any representation made by the allottee. The specific this regard by the petitioner has neither been considered by the 2024 titioner. A charge that is not proven by the department's own evidence cannot form the basis for any punishment. The impugned orders, to the extent they rely on this charge, are unsustainable and are vitiated by perversity as they are based on no evidence. the allegation in the charge-sheet dated 12.01.2017, is not proved and the petitioner has explained in the reply to show cause notice dated 09.05.2023 and also in the revision petition on the strength of the undisputed factual position that Sh. Mange Ram has given the possession to the allottee on 14.10.2004 and thereafter, the allottee has filed a representation that he has been given lesser area. This representation was examined by the Estate Officer and the District Town Planner, Hisar and on 24.08.2007 vide letter No.28430, it was communicated to the allottee that he can take possession on any working day. The petitioner was posted at Hisar upto 17.01.2008 and the allottee has never approached the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred on 17.01.2008 from the Estate Office, HUDA, Hisar to Sirsa Division. It was only in the year 2014 that the allottee requested for taking over the physical possession. The petitioner has handed over the possession to the allottee in terms of ive order passed by the Chief Administrator, Department of Town and Country Planning, Panchkula. As such, the petitioner has played no role either in delaying or handing over the possession or rejecting any representation made by the allottee. The specific this regard by the petitioner has neither been considered by the titioner. A charge that is not proven by the department's own evidence cannot form the basis for any punishment. The impugned orders, to the extent they rely on this charge, are unsustainable and are vitiated by perversity as they are based on no evidence. Further, sheet dated 12.01.2017, is not proved and the petitioner has explained in the reply to show cause notice dated 09.05.2023 and also in the revision petition on the strength of the Mange Ram has given the possession to the allottee on 14.10.2004 and thereafter, the allottee has filed a representation that he has been given lesser area. This representation was examined by the Estate Officer and the District 24.08.2007 vide letter No.28430, it was communicated to the allottee that he can take possession on any working day. The petitioner was posted at Hisar upto 17.01.2008 and the allottee has never approached the petitioner. Thereafter, the nsferred on 17.01.2008 from the Estate Office, HUDA, Hisar to Sirsa Division. It was only in the year 2014 that the allottee requested for taking over the physical possession. The petitioner has handed over the possession to the allottee in terms of ive order passed by the Chief Administrator, Department of Town and Country Planning, Panchkula. As such, the petitioner has played no role either in delaying or handing over the possession or rejecting any representation made by the allottee. The specific grounds taken in this regard by the petitioner has neither been considered by the titioner. A charge that is not proven by the department's own evidence cannot form the basis for any punishment. The impugned orders, to the extent they rely on this charge, are unsustainable and Further, sheet dated 12.01.2017, is not proved and the petitioner has explained in the reply to show cause notice dated 09.05.2023 and also in the revision petition on the strength of the Mange Ram has given the possession to the allottee on 14.10.2004 and thereafter, the allottee has filed a representation that he has been given lesser area. This representation was examined by the Estate Officer and the District 24.08.2007 vide letter No.28430, it was communicated to the allottee that he can take possession on any working day. The petitioner was posted at Hisar upto 17.01.2008 and the allottee has never approached the petitioner. Thereafter, the nsferred on 17.01.2008 from the Estate Office, HUDA, Hisar to Sirsa Division. It was only in the year 2014 that the allottee requested for taking over the physical possession. The petitioner has handed over the possession to the allottee in terms of ive order passed by the Chief Administrator, Department of Town and Country Planning, Panchkula. As such, the petitioner has played no role either in delaying or handing over the possession or rejecting grounds taken in this regard by the petitioner has neither been considered by the NAINA KATHIAT 2025.09.17 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-8989-2024 punishing authority nor by the revisional authority and no such reasons has been given to discard this admitted factual position. 11. Further, the revisional authority, in explicitly relied upon the petitioner's past service record, including seven charge incident from 2000 where the petitioner was later acquitted by a criminal court. This approach is 12. Further reliance may be placed on a Two Judge Bench of the Hon’bel Apex Court in (2010) 10 SCC 539, made the following observations, “36. In view of the conclusions : I. Absence of appellant from duty as Guard Commander for 25.minutes was bonafide and permissible under the statutory rules. II. Imposition of punishment of punishment drill for 10 days for the said a III. Protest by the appellant against the imposition of the said punishment could not warrant enhancement of punishment of the.appellant for confinement in cell for ten days. IV. Disobedience of the enhanced punishment could not, in this case, warrant initiation of disciplinary proceedings by the.Commandant concerned against the appellant. V. The Commandant could not himself become the Judge of his own cause. VI. The Commandant could not appoint his own subordinate as the inquiry off VII. The Commandant could have referred the matter to his superior officer for appropriate action in terms of Rules 1991 VIII. Once the Commandant concerned appeared as a witness himself in the enquiry, he could not pass the order of punishment. IX. against the appellant became a witness before the inquiry officer appointed by him, who is subordinate to him in his office and also accepted the enquiry report and passed the 2024 punishing authority nor by the revisional authority and no such reasons has been given to discard this admitted factual position. Further, the revisional authority, in explicitly relied upon the petitioner's past service record, including seven charge-sheets (which did not result in punishment) and an incident from 2000 where the petitioner was later acquitted by a criminal court. This approach is per incuriam Further reliance may be placed on a Two Judge Bench of the Hon’bel Apex Court in Mohd. Yunus Khan vs. State of U.P., (2010) 10 SCC 539, which speaking though Justice B.S Chouhan made the following observations, “36. In view of the above, we reach the following inescapable conclusions :- I. Absence of appellant from duty as Guard Commander for 25.minutes was bonafide and permissible under the statutory rules. II. Imposition of punishment of punishment drill for 10 days for the said absence was unwarranted. III. Protest by the appellant against the imposition of the said punishment could not warrant enhancement of punishment of the.appellant for confinement in cell for ten days. IV. Disobedience of the enhanced punishment could not, in this case, warrant initiation of disciplinary proceedings by the.Commandant concerned against the appellant. V. The Commandant could not himself become the Judge of his own cause. VI. The Commandant could not appoint his own subordinate as the inquiry officer. VII. The Commandant could have referred the matter to his superior officer for appropriate action in terms of Rules 1991 VIII. Once the Commandant concerned appeared as a witness himself in the enquiry, he could not pass the order of punishment. IX. The Authority who initiated the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant became a witness before the inquiry officer appointed by him, who is subordinate to him in his office and also accepted the enquiry report and passed the punishing authority nor by the revisional authority and no such reasons has been given to discard this admitted factual position. Further, the revisional authority, in its order (P-11), has explicitly relied upon the petitioner's past service record, including sheets (which did not result in punishment) and an incident from 2000 where the petitioner was later acquitted by a er incuriam . Further reliance may be placed on a Two Judge Bench of Mohd. Yunus Khan vs. State of U.P., which speaking though Justice B.S Chouhan above, we reach the following inescapable I. Absence of appellant from duty as Guard Commander for 25.minutes was bonafide and permissible under the II. Imposition of punishment of punishment drill for 10 days bsence was unwarranted. III. Protest by the appellant against the imposition of the said punishment could not warrant enhancement of punishment of the.appellant for confinement in cell for ten IV. Disobedience of the enhanced punishment could not, in this case, warrant initiation of disciplinary proceedings by the.Commandant concerned against the appellant. V. The Commandant could not himself become the Judge VI. The Commandant could not appoint his own icer. VII. The Commandant could have referred the matter to his superior officer for appropriate action in terms of Rules 1991 VIII. Once the Commandant concerned appeared as a witness himself in the enquiry, he could not pass the The Authority who initiated the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant became a witness before the inquiry officer appointed by him, who is subordinate to him in his office and also accepted the enquiry report and passed the punishing authority nor by the revisional authority and no such reasons 11), has explicitly relied upon the petitioner's past service record, including sheets (which did not result in punishment) and an incident from 2000 where the petitioner was later acquitted by a Further reliance may be placed on a Two Judge Bench of Mohd. Yunus Khan vs. State of U.P., which speaking though Justice B.S Chouhan above, we reach the following inescapable I. Absence of appellant from duty as Guard Commander for 25.minutes was bonafide and permissible under the II. Imposition of punishment of punishment drill for 10 days III. Protest by the appellant against the imposition of the said punishment could not warrant enhancement of punishment of the.appellant for confinement in cell for ten IV. Disobedience of the enhanced punishment could not, in this case, warrant initiation of disciplinary proceedings by V. The Commandant could not himself become the Judge VI. The Commandant could not appoint his own VII. The Commandant could have referred the matter to his superior officer for appropriate action in terms of Rules 1991 VIII. Once the Commandant concerned appeared as a witness himself in the enquiry, he could not pass the The Authority who initiated the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant became a witness before the inquiry officer appointed by him, who is subordinate to him in his office and also accepted the enquiry report and passed the NAINA KATHIAT 2025.09.17 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-8989-2024 order of punishment Thu vitiated. X. The Appellate Authority could not consider the past conduct of the appellant to justify the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority without bringing it to the notice of the appellant. XI. As of the.statutory rules and the principles of natural justice as well, it is.rendered null and void. Thus, it remained inexecutable. XII. Past conduct of an employee should not generally be taken into.accoun punishment without bringing it to the notice of the delinquent employee. XIII. The error of violating the principles of natural justice by the Disciplinary Authority has been of such a grave nature that conduct of the appellant, even if not satisfactory, be taken into consideration.” 13. As settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Khan (supra) authority wants to consider the past conduct of an employee in imposing a punishment, the delinquent is entitled to a specific notice thereof. The past conduct, which did not result in any punishment or where the employee was acquitted, cannot be relied surreptitiously to justify a subsequent punishment. The petitioner was never put to notice that his past, unproven charges and an acquittal would be used against him in the present proceedings. This denial of opportunity vitiates the order. Reliance acquittal is a classic case of considering irrelevant material. 14. The revisional authority's order does not contain any analysis of how these past events, even if assumed to be relevant, rationally connect to the present c penalty. It merely parrots a conclusion solely on the basis of order 2024 order of punishment Thus, the order of punishment stood vitiated. X. The Appellate Authority could not consider the past conduct of the appellant to justify the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority without bringing it to the notice of the appellant. XI. As the punishment order had been passed in violation of the.statutory rules and the principles of natural justice as well, it is.rendered null and void. Thus, it remained inexecutable. XII. Past conduct of an employee should not generally be taken into.account to substantiate the quantum of punishment without bringing it to the notice of the delinquent employee. XIII. The error of violating the principles of natural justice by the Disciplinary Authority has been of such a grave nature that under no circumstanc conduct of the appellant, even if not satisfactory, be taken into consideration.” As settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Khan (supra) it is clear and unequivocal that if the disciplina authority wants to consider the past conduct of an employee in imposing a punishment, the delinquent is entitled to a specific notice thereof. The past conduct, which did not result in any punishment or where the employee was acquitted, cannot be relied surreptitiously to justify a subsequent punishment. The petitioner was never put to notice that his past, unproven charges and an acquittal would be used against him in the present proceedings. This denial of opportunity vitiates the order. Reliance on unproven allegations and an acquittal is a classic case of considering irrelevant material. The revisional authority's order does not contain any analysis of how these past events, even if assumed to be relevant, rationally connect to the present charges or justify the enhanced penalty. It merely parrots a conclusion solely on the basis of order s, the order of punishment stood X. The Appellate Authority could not consider the past conduct of the appellant to justify the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority without bringing it to the notice of the appellant. the punishment order had been passed in violation of the.statutory rules and the principles of natural justice as well, it is.rendered null and void. Thus, it remained XII. Past conduct of an employee should not generally t to substantiate the quantum of punishment without bringing it to the notice of the XIII. The error of violating the principles of natural justice by the Disciplinary Authority has been of such a grave under no circumstance can the past conduct of the appellant, even if not satisfactory, be (emphasis added) As settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohd. Yunus it is clear and unequivocal that if the disciplinary authority wants to consider the past conduct of an employee in imposing a punishment, the delinquent is entitled to a specific notice thereof. The past conduct, which did not result in any punishment or where the employee was acquitted, cannot be relied upon surreptitiously to justify a subsequent punishment. The petitioner was never put to notice that his past, unproven charges and an acquittal would be used against him in the present proceedings. This denial of on unproven allegations and an acquittal is a classic case of considering irrelevant material. The revisional authority's order does not contain any analysis of how these past events, even if assumed to be relevant, harges or justify the enhanced penalty. It merely parrots a conclusion solely on the basis of order s, the order of punishment stood X. The Appellate Authority could not consider the past conduct of the appellant to justify the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority the punishment order had been passed in violation of the.statutory rules and the principles of natural justice as well, it is.rendered null and void. Thus, it remained XII. Past conduct of an employee should not generally t to substantiate the quantum of punishment without bringing it to the notice of the XIII. The error of violating the principles of natural justice by the Disciplinary Authority has been of such a grave e can the past conduct of the appellant, even if not satisfactory, be (emphasis added) Mohd. Yunus ry authority wants to consider the past conduct of an employee in imposing a punishment, the delinquent is entitled to a specific notice thereof. The past conduct, which did not result in any punishment or upon surreptitiously to justify a subsequent punishment. The petitioner was never put to notice that his past, unproven charges and an acquittal would be used against him in the present proceedings. This denial of on unproven allegations and an The revisional authority's order does not contain any analysis of how these past events, even if assumed to be relevant, harges or justify the enhanced penalty. It merely parrots a conclusion solely on the basis of order NAINA KATHIAT 2025.09.17 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-8989-2024 passed by the punishing authority.This is precisely the kind of "rubber stamp" reasoning that was condemned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v Court held that "the most that could be said for the stock reason is that it is a general description of the process adopted in arriving at a conclusion." Such an "apology for reasons" does not satisfy the mandatory requirement of a reasoned order. Reasons are the links between the material and the conclusion. Not even a whisper is made in the impugned order either by the Punishing Authority or the revisional Authority dealing with the explanation provided by the petitioner. The impugned order (P grounds. 15. The revisional authority's order (P silent on dealing with the specific and cogent explanations offered by the petitioner in his reply and revision petition. deal with the contentions raised. Failure to do so renders the order arbitrary and in violation of the principles laid down in Brothers (supra) 16. In light of the above, this Court is constrained to hold that the findings against the petitioner, leading to the punishment of a permanent pension cut, are based on a mix of no evidence and irrelevant material. The process is vitiated by a violation of the principles of natural justice and the impugned orders (P therefore, wholly arbitrary, capricious, suffer from the vice of perversity, and are unreasoned orders in the eyes of law. 2024 passed by the punishing authority.This is precisely the kind of "rubber stamp" reasoning that was condemned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court Union of India vs. Mohan Lal Capoor, (1974) 2 SCC 836. Court held that "the most that could be said for the stock reason is that it is a general description of the process adopted in arriving at a conclusion." Such an "apology for reasons" does not satisfy the ry requirement of a reasoned order. Reasons are the links between the material and the conclusion. Not even a whisper is made in the impugned order either by the Punishing Authority or the revisional Authority dealing with the explanation provided by the etitioner. The impugned order (P-11) is rendered void on these The revisional authority's order (P silent on dealing with the specific and cogent explanations offered by the petitioner in his reply and revision petition. deal with the contentions raised. Failure to do so renders the order arbitrary and in violation of the principles laid down in Brothers (supra). In light of the above, this Court is constrained to hold that ngs against the petitioner, leading to the punishment of a permanent pension cut, are based on a mix of no evidence and irrelevant material. The process is vitiated by a violation of the principles of natural justice and the impugned orders (P therefore, wholly arbitrary, capricious, suffer from the vice of perversity, and are unreasoned orders in the eyes of law. passed by the punishing authority.This is precisely the kind of "rubber- stamp" reasoning that was condemned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court s. Mohan Lal Capoor, (1974) 2 SCC 836. The Court held that "the most that could be said for the stock reason is that it is a general description of the process adopted in arriving at a conclusion." Such an "apology for reasons" does not satisfy the ry requirement of a reasoned order. Reasons are the links between the material and the conclusion. Not even a whisper is made in the impugned order either by the Punishing Authority or the revisional Authority dealing with the explanation provided by the 11) is rendered void on these The revisional authority's order (P-11) is conspicuously silent on dealing with the specific and cogent explanations offered by the petitioner in his reply and revision petition. A reasoned order must deal with the contentions raised. Failure to do so renders the order arbitrary and in violation of the principles laid down in M/s Shukla & In light of the above, this Court is constrained to hold that ngs against the petitioner, leading to the punishment of a permanent pension cut, are based on a mix of no evidence and irrelevant material. The process is vitiated by a violation of the principles of natural justice and the impugned orders (P-9 & P-11) are, therefore, wholly arbitrary, capricious, suffer from the vice of perversity, and are unreasoned orders in the eyes of law. - stamp" reasoning that was condemned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court The Court held that "the most that could be said for the stock reason is that it is a general description of the process adopted in arriving at a conclusion." Such an "apology for reasons" does not satisfy the ry requirement of a reasoned order. Reasons are the links between the material and the conclusion. Not even a whisper is made in the impugned order either by the Punishing Authority or the revisional Authority dealing with the explanation provided by the 11) is rendered void on these 11) is conspicuously silent on dealing with the specific and cogent explanations offered by A reasoned order must deal with the contentions raised. Failure to do so renders the order M/s Shukla & In light of the above, this Court is constrained to hold that ngs against the petitioner, leading to the punishment of a permanent pension cut, are based on a mix of no evidence and irrelevant material. The process is vitiated by a violation of the e, therefore, wholly arbitrary, capricious, suffer from the vice of perversity, NAINA KATHIAT 2025.09.17 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-8989-2024 17. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the present writ petition is allowed. 18. The impugned order No. EA 10.05.2023 (Annexure P Panchkula, and the impugned order dated 15.02.2024 (Annexure P 11) passed by the Addl. Chief Secretary, Town & Country Planning, Haryana, are hereby quashed and set aside. 19. Respondent consequential benefits to the petitioner along with the pensionary benefits, notional promotion and admissible ACP within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 09.09.2025 NainaRajput Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable : 2024 For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned order No. EA 10.05.2023 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Chief Administrator, HSVP, Panchkula, and the impugned order dated 15.02.2024 (Annexure P 11) passed by the Addl. Chief Secretary, Town & Country Planning, Haryana, are hereby quashed and set aside. Respondent No.1 is directed to release all the consequential benefits to the petitioner along with the pensionary benefits, notional promotion and admissible ACP within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 09.09.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable : For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the present writ The impugned order No. EA-1-2023/87140 dated 9) passed by the Chief Administrator, HSVP, Panchkula, and the impugned order dated 15.02.2024 (Annexure P- 11) passed by the Addl. Chief Secretary, Town & Country Planning, Haryana, are hereby quashed and set aside. No.1 is directed to release all the consequential benefits to the petitioner along with the pensionary benefits, notional promotion and admissible ACP within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Yes/No For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the present writ 2023/87140 dated 9) passed by the Chief Administrator, HSVP, - 11) passed by the Addl. Chief Secretary, Town & Country Planning, No.1 is directed to release all the consequential benefits to the petitioner along with the pensionary benefits, notional promotion and admissible ACP within a period of two (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) NAINA KATHIAT 2025.09.17 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document