125 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-24848-2025 Date of decision: 26.08.2025 Subhash Chander ....Petitioner Versus Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Mohnish Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Prince Singh, Advocate for the respondents. HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing/setting aside the impugned order dated 10.12.2024 (Annexure P-11) passed by respondent No.1 and further setting aside the orders dated 23.12.2020 (Annexure P-6) and order dated 02.07.2024 (Annexure P-9). Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the respondent-Corporation has enacted the Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd (Punishment and Appeal) Regulation, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Regulation, 2018’) providing the procedure for initiating disciplinary proceedings against its employees. He further submits that the penalties are provided under Regulation 4 and the petitioner was issued show cause notice as well as charge sheet for imposing major penalty as provided under Regulation 4(b) of the Regulation, 2018. Admittedly, in the procedural safeguard provided, the regulations have not been complied with by the Inquiry Officer. Inquiry report was never supplied to the petitioner and neither any Presenting Officer Neha 2025.08.29 11:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24848-2025 -2- was appointed. The disciplinary proceedings initiated for imposing major punishment was concluded without examining any witnesses. Non-compliance of the procedural safeguards would initiate the entire disciplinary proceedings carried out by the respondent-Corporation, against the petitioner. He further submits that the procedure must be compatible with Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. it must be fair, just and not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or unreasonableness and placed reliance in this regard on the judgment passed in ‘Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India’ AIR 19678 SC 597. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation very fairly submits that disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner would be initiated de novo strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Regulation, 2018 and he could not controvert the fact that the impugned order (Annexure P- 16) passed without following the procedure as prescribed under Regulation, 2018. In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of in terms of the statement made by counsel for the respondent-Corporation and impugned order dated 10.12.2024 (Annexure P-11), orders dated 23.12.2020 & 02.07.2024 (Annexure P-6 & P-9, respectively) are hereby set aside. However, liberty is granted to the respondent-Corporation to proceed further in accordance with law as per the procedure prescribed under Regulation, 2018. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 26.08.2025 Neha Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Neha 2025.08.29 11:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document