IN THE 112 SMT SHANTI DEVI STATE OF HARYANA CORAM : HON'BLE Present: - Mr. for VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, Challenge 24.01.2008, which dated 07.12.2012 12.03.2024. The aside of the aforesaid 2. Counsel Sh. Baljeet Singh THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AT CHANDIGARH CWP Date DEVI VERSUS HARYANA AND OTHERS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. ***** Mr. Sunil Goswami, Advocate the petitioner. ***** BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) Challenge in the present writ petition which has been affirmed by the Appellate 07.12.2012 and further upheld in the second The petitioner has, thus, approache aforesaid orders. Counsel appearing on behalf of Singh-husband of the petitioner, was PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH CWP-14192-2025 Date of decision: 15.07.2025 ......Petitioner .......Respondents S. BHARDWAJ petition is to the order dated Appellate Authority vide order second appeal vide order dated approached this Court seeking setting the petitioner submits that was appointed as a Conductor in VISHAL SHARMA 2025.07.22 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-14192-2025 the respondent-Transport contended that leave from 28.08.2003 health being the to initiate disciplinary the Haryana Civil unauthorized absence pendency of proceedings was also issued rendering the proceedings infirmity. The General Officer as the Enquiry is submitted that husband, was not concluded ex parte, the charges were thereafter issued was filed, but no the General Manager, punishment of appeal preferred Additional Transport 07.12.2012, without further submits 2025 Transport Department on regular owing to deteriorating health 28.08.2003 to 19.01.2004. However, the cause of his absence, the respondent disciplinary proceedings by serving a Civil Services (Punishment and absence from duty. He contends proceedings under Rule 8, a fresh issued on 16.03.2004 on the same proceedings vitiated by procedural General Manager, Haryana Roadways Enquiry Officer to conduct a regular that the delinquent officer, i.e., not associated with the enquiry parte, and the Enquiry Officer subm were proved.It is further submitted that issued to the petitioner’s husband on no opportunity of personal hearing Manager, Haryana Roadways, dismissal from service vide order preferred thereagainst before the Appellate Transport Commissioner, was also without appreciation of the grounds that the petitioner’s husband thereafter -2- regular basis on 14.02.1980. It is conditions, he remained on However, despite her husband’s ill respondent-Department proceeded charge sheet under Rule 8 of and Appeal) Rules, 1987, for contends that, notwithstanding the resh charge sheet under Rule 7 set of allegations, thereby procedural impropriety and legal Roadways appointed the Accounts regular departmental enquiry. It i.e., the petitioner’s deceased enquiry proceedings, which were submitted a report holding that that a show cause notice was 20.08.2004, to which a reply hearing was afforded. Thereafter, proceeded to impose the order dated 24.01.2008. An Appellate Authority, i.e., the dismissed vide order dated grounds raised therein.Counsel thereafter preferred a second VISHAL SHARMA 2025.07.22 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-14192-2025 appeal, but passed however, vide order ground of the petitioner’s petitioner approached Court, set aside authorities to decide the second Appellate 12.03.2024, affirming by the Disciplinary petition. Aggrieved 3. Counsel i) That the Services (Punishment very same allegations under Rule 8 of under Rule 7, without 8, is ex facie impermissible ii) That although General Manager, was passed by the was not the competent original disciplinary violative of the statutory 2025 passed away during its pendency. The order dated 10.05.2019, rejected petitioner’s husband having expired. approached this Court by way of CWP aside the order dated 10.05.2019 and decide the appeal on merits.In compliance Appellate Authority passed the affirming the punishment of dismissal Disciplinary Authority. The same is now Aggrieved thereof, the instant writ petition Counsel for the petitioner has raised charge sheet issued under Rule (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 on allegations for which proceedings of the said Rules. Thus, the initiation without culmination or withdrawal impermissible and indicative of procedural although the disciplinary proceedings Manager, Haryana Roadways, Jind, the the General Manager, Haryana Roa competent authority in the matter. disciplinary authority, without assigning statutory rules; -3- The respondent-Department, rejected the second appeal on the expired. Aggrieved thereof, the CWP-33561-2019, wherein this and directed the respondent- compliance of the said order, the impugned order dated dismissal from service as imposed now assailed in the instant writ petition has been filed. raised the following arguments:- Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil on 16.03.2004 pertains to the proceedings had already been initiated initiation of fresh proceedings withdrawal of proceedings under Rule procedural irregularity; proceedings were initiated by the the impugned punishment order Roadways, Chandigarh, who matter. This departure from the assigning jurisdiction, is per se VISHAL SHARMA 2025.07.22 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-14192-2025 iii) That the proceeded with reasonable opportunity husband of the associating the violating the principles iv) That the deceased unblemished service the punishment due to medical exigency, v) That the competent conduct of the petitioner the basis for sustaining charge period is already crystallised. 4. No cited by the petitioner. 5. I have gone through documents 6. In so proceedings on has perused the 2025 Enquiry Officer, appointed by the departmental proceedings opportunity to the delinquent official, the petitioner. The enquiry was concluded charged officer, thereby causing principles of natural justice; deceased husband of the petitioner service with the respondent-Department. of dismissal from service, inflicted exigency, is shockingly disproportionate competent authorities have further petitioner beyond charge, which sustaining the punishment. It is urged is irrelevant for awarding punishment crystallised. other arguments has been raised petitioner. have heard the learned Counsel documents on record. so far as the contention regarding on the same set of allegations the respective proceedings initiated -4- by the disciplinary authority, without affording due and official, namely the deceased concluded ex parte without causing manifest prejudice and petitioner had rendered 26 years of Department. In the said backdrop, inflicted for unauthorized absence disproportionate; further erred in relying upon the which could not have been made urged that the conduct post the punishment in respect of charges raised nor any judgment has been for the petitioner and have regarding initiation of disciplinary allegations is concerned, this Court initiated against Baljeet Singh, the VISHAL SHARMA 2025.07.22 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-14192-2025 deceased husband Services (Punishment proceedings initiated a conjoint reading proceedings initiated allegedly caused the said loss ought initiated under delinquent official 19.01.2004, without sets of proceedings action and cannot initiation of Rule of duplicity or being 7. Adverting had conducted a petitioner has not petition. The same, of the impugned petitioner has also documentary evidence, 8027 dated 20.08.2004 enclosed therewith, delinquent.This 2025 husband of the petitioner under Rule (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 initiated under Rule 7 of the said Rules reading of both these documents, it initiated under Rule 8 were with caused to the State and were confined ought not to be recovered from the Rule 7 pertained to the unauthorised official from duty for the period commencing without prior sanction or permission.It proceedings were founded upon distinct cannot be said to be in duplication or Rule 7 proceedings, therefore, cannot being hit by the rule against double Adverting now to the issue as to whether a fair and impartial enquiry, it not appended the enquiry report same, being a crucial piece of evidence impugned disciplinary action, has been conspicuously also contended, without substantiating evidence, that although the show 20.08.2004 purportedly stated that therewith, no such report was, in fact, bald and unsubstantiated plea, raised -5- Rule 8 of the Haryana Civil 1987 dated 14.01.2004 and the Rules dated 16.03.2004. Upon it is manifest that while the with respect to a financial loss confined to an explanation as to why the delinquent, the proceedings unauthorised absence of the commencing from 28.08.2003 to permission.It is thus evident that both distinct and independent causes of overlapping allegations. The cannot be faulted on the ground double jeopardy. whether the Enquiry Officer is pertinent to note that the report along with the present writ evidence forming the foundation conspicuously withheld. The substantiating the same from any show cause notice bearing No. that the enquiry report was appended or served upon the raised for the first time after a VISHAL SHARMA 2025.07.22 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-14192-2025 lapse of over two petitioner, who of departmental so. Such a contention, afterthought and 8. It is non-supply of the was ever raised departmental proceedings. is extracted as under: 2025 two decades, cannot be accepted had full opportunity to raise such proceedings and in earlier rounds contention, raised after an inordinate and is liable to be rejected. is further observed that no grievance the enquiry report to the deceased raised before the punishing authority proceedings. The operative part of under:- “Employee not charge sheet in the office. 3870/ECC Dated Roadways Jind, account enquiry officer. Enquiry (Enquiry Report) found the enquiry report submitted order no. 8027/ECC Dated issued you final show cau why not your services your absent period shall without pay. Employee on 27.08.2004 but no office. Thereafter reminder no. 9855/ECC Dated received by him on 21.09.2004 submitted even thereafter. 11455/ECC Dated 23.11.2004 -6- accepted at this belated stage. The such an objection in the course rounds of litigation, failed to do inordinate delay, is evidently an grievance or argument regarding deceased husband of the petitioner authority during the course of of the order dated 24.01.2008 submitted his reply to the office. So, as per order no 15.04.2004 of Haryana accounts officer was appointed as Enquiry officer in his detail report found him guilty. Agreeing with submitted by enquiry officer vide Dated 20.08.2004 this office cause notice to the effect that services shall be terminated, and shall be sanctioned as leave Employee received above sald letter reply was submitted in the reminder was given vide letter Dated 17.09.2004, which was 21.09.2004 but no reply was thereafter. Vide office order No. 23.11.2004 opportunity of VISHAL SHARMA 2025.07.22 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-14192-2025 2025 personal hearing was come present on any chances were given to hearing but he did not from Haryana Roadways on dated 11.10.2005 regarding absent was employee was called letter no. 7017/ECC present on dated 24.05.2006 present. Works inspector submitted report that work as per his wish time and habitual to remain In addition to this record following cases and embezzlement were financial loss by not amounting Rs. 27,574/ on 28.06.2006. 2. To 09.03.2006. 3. Το left taking liquor at duty cause financial loss of 02.01.2006. 5. To cause to the Govt on 20.04.2006. To remain workshop 30.03.2006. 7. absent 02.12.2004. 8. To remain to 19.02.2006. 9. To remain 04.07.2006. 10. For embezzlement 08.03.2006. 11. Case for -7- was given to the employee to any working day. So, many to the employee for personal not come present. On transfer Roadways Jind to Chandigarh depot 11.10.2005 his pending case file received in this office. The for personal hearing vide dated 05.05.2006 to come 24.05.2006 still he does not come inspector Sub-Depot Kalka this employee is habitual to and used to drunk on duty remain absent from duty. this after perusal of his service cases regarding absent from duty were found:- 1. To cause not depositing Ticket Box 27,574/- of Kalka-Ludhiana route To miss 230 KM on dated left the vehicle on road after time on 26.02.2006. 4. To of Rs. 1916/- to the Govt on cause financial loss of Rs. 1840/- 20.04.2006. 6. To left the vehicle at workshop after taking liquor on absent from 25.10.2004 to remain absent from 21.01.2006 remain continue absent from embezzlement of Rs. 45/- on for embezzlement of Rs. 246/- VISHAL SHARMA 2025.07.22 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-14192-2025 9. It further alleged non-supply employee even at Authority, viz. t appeal vide order examination of the consistent pattern that the deceased 2025 and for Rs. 923/- is pending submitted any reply to In addition of this take liquor on duty time duty. To keep such an good in interest of services, examined with regard matters and reached person who remains absent and unauthorized way, habitual of embezzlement reputation of department an employee is not good in addition to service interest So, I order to terminated Baljeet Singh Conductor immediate effect and his leave without pay and restrict to subsistent allowance availed.” further emerges from the record supply of the enquiry report was at the time of adjudication of his the Additional Transport Commissioner, order dated 07.12.2012, had undertaken the service record of the petitioner’s pattern of indiscipline and misconduct. deceased had been found guilty of eleven -8- pending and employee had not the office for any letter. this the employee is habitual to time and to remain absent from an employee in service is not services, above signed properly regard to all the above mention to the conclusion that the absent from duty on his own way, use to violate the rules, embezzlement and to diminish the department by grave indiscipline such good in interest of Department interest and public interest. terminated the services of Sh. Conductor No. 113/185 from his absent period is treated as and period of suspension is allowance which he already record that no plea regarding the was raised by the deceased his first appeal. The Appellate Commissioner, while dismissing the undertaken a comprehensive petitioner’s husband and observed a misconduct. It was specifically noted eleven separate instances of VISHAL SHARMA 2025.07.22 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-14192-2025 misconduct, which three occasions, two counts, alcoholism occasion. These discipline.The Appellate afforded various proceedings, the defence or rebuttal order reads thus: 2025 which included causing financial loss occasions, unauthorized absence on three alcoholism on two occasions, and failure These acts cumulatively indicated a habitual Appellate Authority further recorded various opportunities of personal hearing the deceased failed to avail the same rebuttal against the charges levelled. thus:- “Enquiry officer in Report) found him guilty. report submitted by enquiry 8027/ECC Dated 20.08.2004 show cause notice to the effect shall be terminated, and your sanctioned as leave without above said letter on 27.08.2004 submitted in the office. Thereafter vide letter no. 9855/ECC Dated received by him on 21.09.2004 submitted even thereafter. 11455/ECC Dated 23.11.2004 hearing was given to the employee any working day. So, many employee for personal hearing present. On transfer from Haryana Chandigarh depot on dated 11.10.2005 file regarding absent was received -9- loss to the State exchequer on occasions, embezzlement on failure to perform duty on one habitual disregard for service recorded that despite being hearing during the disciplinary same or to present any cogent levelled. The operative part of the his detail report (Enquiry Agreeing with the enquiry enquiry officer vide order no. 20.08.2004 this office issued you final effect that why not your services your absent period shall be without pay. Employee received 27.08.2004 but no reply was Thereafter reminder was given Dated 17.09.2004, which was 21.09.2004 but no reply was thereafter. Vide office order No. 23.11.2004 opportunity of personal employee to come present on many chances were given to the hearing but he did not come Haryana Roadways Jind to 11.10.2005 his pending case received in this office. The VISHAL SHARMA 2025.07.22 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-14192-2025 2025 employee was called for personal 7071/ECC dated 05.05.2006 24.05.2006 still he does inspector Sub-Depot Kalka employee is habitual to work drunk on duty time and hab duty. In addition to this after following cases regarding embezzlement were found. 1. To cause financial loss by amounting Rs. 27,574/- of 28.06.2006. 2. To miss 230 KM on dated 09.03.2006. 3. To left the vehicle on road time on 26.02.2006. 4. To cause financial loss of 02.01.2006. 5. To cause financial loss of 20.04.2006. 6. To left the vehicle at workshop 30.03.2006. 7. To remain absent from 25.10.2004 8. To remain absent from 21.01.2006 9. To remain continue absent 10. For embezzlement of Rs. 45/ 11. Case for embezzlement of is pending and employee had the office for any letter. -10- personal hearing vide letter no. 05.05.2006 to come present on dated not come present. Works submitted report that this work as per his wish and used to habitual to remain absent from perusal of his service record regarding absent from duty and by not depositing Ticket Box of Kalka-Ludhiana route on, 09.03.2006. road after taking liquor at duty of Rs. 1916/- to the Govt on of Rs. 1840/- to the Govt on workshop after taking liquor on 25.10.2004 to 02.12.2004. 21.01.2006 to 19.02.2006. absent from 04.07.2006. 45/- on 08.03.2006. of Rs. 246/- and for Rs. 923/- had not submitted any reply to VISHAL SHARMA 2025.07.22 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-14192-2025 2025 In addition of this the liquor on duty time and to re keep such an employee in service of services, the case sent properly examined with regard matters and reached to the who remains absent from unauthorized way, use to violate embezzlement and to diminish department by grave indiscipline good in interest of Department interest and public interest. So, I order to terminated Singh Conductor No. 113/185 his absent period is treated period of suspension is restrict which he already received. After examining the case the conclusion that appellant hearing by this office for 10.10.2012, 29.11.2012 but appellant not single occasion and even not the reason for not appearing this it appears that appellant anything in his defense in addition him. So, by ex-parte proceeding, the record related to this case Manager discussed the details case of the appellant but there charge sheet issued to the department enquiry of this -11- employee is habitual to take remain absent from duty. To service is not good in interest by General Manager was regard to all the above mention conclusion that the person from duty on his own and violate the rules, habitual of diminish the reputation of indiscipline such an employee is not Department in addition to service terminated the services of Sh. Baljeet 113/185 from immediate effect and treated as leave without pay and restrict to subsistent allowance case file and record I came to appellant was called for personal 10.10.2012, 31.10.2012 and not come present event on not sent in writing to this office appearing for personal hearing. From appellant does not want to say addition to the appeal filed by proceeding, on examination of all case it was found that General details of other cases also in this there is no such details in the the appellant. But in the case, enquiry officer found VISHAL SHARMA 2025.07.22 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-14192-2025 10. None letters/communication of reply, supply hence, the said factual as correct. Accordingly, Disciplinary Authority, adequate or fair 11. Further, the petitioner Government of 9/27/2014-2T (ii) 12. The proceedings initiated petitioner, remains petition. Rather, extraordinary jurisdiction 2025 him fully guilt in this case. General order by following proper legal sustainable. So, I agreeing 24.01.2008 passed by General Roadways, Chandigarh vide terminated his services and absent leave without pay and period to subsistence allowance not the appeal of the appellant dated dismiss the same.” None of findings recorded either with letters/communication to the deceased husband supply of the enquiry report or personal factual finding recorded by the Accordingly, it cannot be held that Authority, or the Appellate Authorities opportunity of hearing to the petitioner’s Further, it is not in dispute that the came to be dismissed by the Haryana, Department of Transport, (ii) dated 12.03.2024. The factual matrix pertaining to initiated against Baljeet Singh, the remains undisputed and uncontroverted Rather, an attempt has been made by jurisdiction of this Court solely -12- General Manager passed the legal procedure which legally agreeing with the order dated General Manager Haryana vide which it was ordered to absent period was treated as period of suspension was restrict not found any merit or force in dated 20.04.2009 and order to with respect to the dispatch of of the petitioner about filing personal hearing have been denied, authorities has to be deemed that the Enquiry Officer, the Authorities failed to afford an petitioner’s deceased husband. the second appeal preferred by the Principal Secretary to Transport, vide Endorsement No. to the various disciplinary the deceased husband of the uncontroverted even in the present writ the petitioner to invoke the solely on grounds of sympathy, VISHAL SHARMA 2025.07.22 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-14192-2025 which, in the considered judicial interferenceparticularly was passed nearly 13. It is imposition of punishment, relevant and material present case do an asset to the Authority, the work 1980 until 2004 misconduct.The of proven misconduct, from duty, not only also during subsequent 21.01.2006 to 19.02.2006; passing of the embezzlement stand undisputed and uncontested. 14. Thus, Baljeet Singh, failed and honesty expected duties. 2025 considered view of this Court, interferenceparticularly when the order nearly 17 years ago. is a well-settled proposition of law punishment, the overall service conduct material consideration. The cumulative not, in any manner, project Baljeet the organization. Rather, as duly work and conduct of the delinquent 2004 over a span of 24 years, was misconduct.The record reflects that there were misconduct, including but not limited only during the charge period (28.08.2003 subsequent periods such as 25.10.2004 19.02.2006; and continuous absence impugned order of dismissal. stand recorded against the deceased uncontested. Thus, it stands clearly established failed to exhibit the requisite degree expected of a public servant while -13- Court, cannot form the basis for order of dismissal from service law that while determining the conduct of an employee is a cumulative circumstances in the Baljeet Singh (now deceased) as recorded by the Appellate delinquent official from the year marked by repeated acts of as many as eleven instances limited to unauthorized absence (28.08.2003 to 19.01.2004), but 25.10.2004 to 02.12.2004; absence from 04.07.2006 until the dismissal. Furthermore, charges of deceased employee and remained that the deceased employee, degree of sincerity, integrity, while discharging his official VISHAL SHARMA 2025.07.22 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-14192-2025 15. It is proceedings were Roadways, Jind, punishment came afforded him adequate Moreover, at the Baljeet Singh continued command of the of punishment has position has not during the course 16. He law preventing taking into account determining the stand adopted consideration of misconduct, cannot 17. The powers under judicial appellate authority because another the impugned 2025 is further not in dispute that although were commenced when the deceased Jind, he had already been transferred came to be passed. Nevertheless, adequate opportunity of hearing the time the order of dismissal continued to remain under the the disciplinary authority at Chandigarh has been passed by the authority not been disputed or challenged by course of proceedings. further does not dispute that there the disciplinary authority or the account the overall service record the quantum of punishment to be by the petitioner herself, the of the broader service record, including cannot be permitted to be raised or The position in law remains well judicial review, the High Court authority to re-appreciate facts or substitute another conclusion is possible. Interference orders suffer from illegality, -14- although the initial disciplinary deceased was posted at Haryana transferred by the time the order of Nevertheless, the competent authority hearing in accordance with law. dismissal from service was passed, the administrative control and Chandigarh. Accordingly, the order authority competent in law. The said by the petitioner at any stage there exists no prohibition in the appellate authority from record of an employee while imposed. In view of the fair the argument impugning the including prior instances of accepted at this stage. well settled that, in exercise of Court does not function as an substitute its own view merely ence is warranted only where illegality, perversity, procedural VISHAL SHARMA 2025.07.22 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-14192-2025 impropriety, or punishment shocks infirmity, concu should not ordinarily 18. Taking petitioner’s deceased unauthorized absence thereafter till his thereafter, it cannot authority suffers disproportionate 19. Consequently, is hereby dismissed JULY 15, 2025 Vishal Sharma 2025 or manifest arbitrariness or discrimination shocks the conscience of the Court. concurrent findings recorded by the ordinarily be interfered with. Taking into consideration the overall deceased husband, as also the absence for the period 28.08.2003 his dismissal coupled with repeated cannot be held that the order suffers from any legal infirmity or that disproportionate to the misconduct established. Consequently, finding no merit in the dismissed in limine. (VINOD Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable -15- discrimination or where the Court. In the absence of any such the departmental authorities overall service record of the the proven misconduct of 28.08.2003 to 19.01.2004 and even repeated acts of indiscipline passed by the disciplinary that the punishment imposed is the present petition, the same (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No VISHAL SHARMA 2025.07.22 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document