1 CWP-22946-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 120 CWP-22946-2026 Date of Decision: 27.07.2026 Ashok Kumar .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. L.K Gollen, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Rahul Dev Singh, Addl. AG Haryana-State. HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ or order in the nature of certiorari for quashing the preliminary enquiry report dated 03.08.2022 (Annexure P-4), charge-sheet dated 07.09.2022 (Annexure P-9), enquiry report dated 05.01.2023 (Annexure P-19), order dated 13.04.2023 imposing penalty of compulsory retirement by respondent No.2 (Annexure P-21) and order dated 07.11.2023(Annexure P-23) reducing said penalty to demotion from the post of Deputy Superintendent to Assistant, passed against petitioner in appeal, being wholly illegal and violative of principles of natural justice. Further directing respondents to grant petitioner all PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.08.01 13:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 CWP-22946-2026 consequential benefits flowing from the quashing impugned orders, including notional restoration to post of Deputy Superintendent, fixation and release of arrears of pay and allowances, continuity of service and refixation of pension and all other retiral benefits accordingly and to treat entire period from the date of suspension i.e. 08.09.2022 till the date of superannuation of petitioner, as period spent on duty for all intends and purposes with all consequential benefits. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner originated from a pseudonymous complaint, received on 27.07.2022 (Annexure P-2), which, in terms of the Government Instructions dated 01.02.2021 (Annexure P-3), ought to have been ignored and filed without taking any action. Despite the said binding instructions, R.P. Bhasin- one of the persons named in the complaint (Annexure P-2), conducted a preliminary enquiry and vide report dated 03.08.2022 (Annexure P-4), the petitioner was sought to be implicated as the person responsible for getting the said complaint posted. Such act is expressly violative of the principle of natural justice embodied in the maxim- nemo judex in causa sua i.e. no one can be a judge in his own cause. 3. Learned counsel further submits that solely on the strength of inquiry report dated 03.08.2022, a show cause notice dated 08.08.2022 (Annexure P-7) was issued to the petitioner followed by a charge-sheet dated 07.09.2022 (Annexure P-9) under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 2016. The petitioner was placed PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.08.01 13:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 CWP-22946-2026 under suspension vide order dated 08.09.2022 (Annexure P-10). It is further submitted that R.P. Bhasin was appointed as the Inquiry Officer despite having crossed the maximum permissible age prescribed under the Government Instructions dated 15.03.2022 (Annexure P-16). This Court in CWP-15355-2023 titled as ‘Sanjeev Gupta Versus Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and another,’ decided on 12.02.2026, held the appointment of an Inquiry Officer beyond the age of 70 years contrary to the Government Instructions dated 15.03.2022 (Annexure P-16) and set aside the inquiry report, chargesheet and punishment order impugned therein. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the judgment passed by this Court in CWP-35929-2025 titled as Kulwant Singh Vs. Chairman, Haryana Power Utilities, Panchkula and others, decided on 03.12.2025 and order dated 08.12.2022 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP- 27601-2022 titled as Sukhbir Singh Goyat Vs.State of Haryana and others, wherein the order appointing the Inquiry Officer along with all subsequent orders were set aside and liberty was granted to the respondents to start de novo disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner therein, in accordance with applicable UHBVNL (Punishment and Appeal) Regulations, 2018. 4. Furthermore, pursuant to the inquiry report dated 05.01.2023 (Annexure P-19) submitted by the said Inquiry Officer, the petitioner was inflicted with the punishment of compulsory retirement vide order dated 13.04.2023 (Annexure P-21). Although the statutory appeal dated 24.04.2023 (Annexure P-22) was partly allowed vide appellate order dated PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.08.01 13:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 CWP-22946-2026 07.11.2023 (Annexure P-23) by reducing the punishment from compulsory retirement to demotion to the post of Assistant, the appellate authority failed to consider the fundamental legal infirmities vitiating the entire disciplinary proceedings. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner ultimately retired from service on 28.02.2026 as Assistant and his service record remained exemplary throughout, as reflected from his Annual Confidential Reports (Annexure P-28) and Prashansa Patra dated 26.01.2026 (Annexure P-29). It is, thus, contended that the entire disciplinary proceedings stand vitiated on account of violation of the Government Instructions dated 01.02.2021 (Annexure P-3) governing anonymous and pseudonymous complaints and Government Instructions dated 15.03.2022 (Annexure P-16) whereby age limit has been prescribed for appointment of the Inquiry Officer. 5. On advance notice, learned State counsel waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents and opposes the present writ petition. He contends that the petitioner, having participated in the disciplinary proceedings without raising any objection to the appointment of the Inquiry Officer, cannot now be permitted to challenge the inquiry on the ground that the Inquiry Officer had crossed the maximum permissible age. It is submitted that the petitioner is estopped from raising such a plea at this belated stage after having subjected himself to the inquiry proceedings. However, learned State counsel could not dispute that the Government of Haryana has prescribed the maximum permissible age for appointment/continuance of an Inquiry Officer under the Government PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.08.01 13:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5 CWP-22946-2026 Instructions dated 15.03.2022 (Annexure P-16), nor could he controvert the fact that the said issue has already been considered by this Court in Sanjeev Gupta (supra). 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file with their able assistance. 7. The issue involved in the present petition is no longer res integra, as the same has already been decisively dealt with by this Court in Kulwant Singh (supra) and Sukhbir Singh Goyat (supra). The operative part of the judgment rendered in Kulwant Singh (supra) reads as under: - “4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that respondent No.6 was appointed as Enquiry Officer when he was 84 years of age. This issue was considered by this Court in CWP- 27601- 2022, titled as Sukhbir Singh vs State of Haryana and others, wherein it has been observed as under:- “One fails to understand non-compliance of, what is otherwise having very plain and simple meaning, instructions dated 15.03.2022 (Annexure P-10) envisaging, as clear as daylight, that eligibility criteria for empanelment of retired officers as Enquiry Officers must ensure that the maximum age of Inquiry Officer should not be more than 70 years. Even the renewal of the term of an Inquiry Officer cannot be made beyond the age of 70 years. Reference may be had to Para (ii) sub-clause (b) and (c) of Clause 1 of eligibility criteria per instructions, ibid. 2. While issuing the instructions, Chief Secretary office was fully conscious of the fact that there were 14 Inquiry Officers, PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.08.01 13:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 6 CWP-22946-2026 who were above 70 years of age. And yet, a conscious call was taken, and rightly so, not to empanel them after attaining the age of 70 years {Clause (c) of (ii)}. Appointment of respondent No.3 herein, who is stated to be 84 years of age, as Inquiry Officer vide order dated 04.10.2022 vide Annexure P-5, appears to be in gross violation of the crystal clear administrative instructions ibid. 3. Notice of motion. 4. On advance service of copy of the petition, learned State counsel appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondent- State of Haryana and seeks time to get instructions and file return. 5. Adjourned to 08.12.2022. 6. Meanwhile, let an affidavit of respondent no.1 i.e., Additional Chief Secretary be filed as to how many of the empanelled Inquiry Officers are; (a) more than 70 years of age and; (b) above 70 and total number of enquiries being handled by them before issuance of instructions and; (c) above 70 and number of enquiries assigned to them after issuance of instructions (supra) 7. On oral request of learned counsel for the petitioner, Chief Secretary of State of Haryana is made as party- respondent No.5. Registry to make necessary correction/addition in the memo of parties. Chief Secretary is requested to ensure that his administrative instructions are strictly complied with by all the Administrative Secretaries of Boards/Corporations etc. His affidavit of compliance be also filed. 8. In the meantime, inquiry proceedings against the petitioner shall remain stayed. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.08.01 13:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7 CWP-22946-2026 5. In the said case, the order qua appointment of Enquiry Officer was later on withdrawn and the writ petition was disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. 6. In view of the Instructions dated 15.03.2022 (Annexure P29) as well as the order passed by this Court on 02.12.2022 in Sukhbir Singh’s case (supra), the present petition is allowed and the appointment of Enquiry Officer vide order dated 14.07.2022 (Annexure P-3) along with all subsequent orders including the punishment order dated 23.05.2023 (Annexure P-24) are set-aside, as the same have been passed without following the drill of Regulation 7(A)(1) of the UHBVNL (Punishment & Appeal) Regulations, 2018. 7. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to start the de novo disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with the applicable UHBVNL (Punishment & Appeal) Regulations, 2018 and appoint an Enquiry Officer in terms of the Instructions dated 15.03.2022 (Annexure P-29).” (emphasis added) 8. In view of the above and following the judgments rendered by this Court in Kulwant Singh (supra), Sukhbir Singh Goyat (supra) as well as Sanjeev Gupta's case (supra), the present writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the preliminary enquiry report dated 03.08.2022(Annexure P- 4), the charge-sheet dated 07.09.2022 (Annexure P-9), the enquiry report dated 05.01.2023 (Annexure P-19), the punishment order dated 13.04.2023 (Annexure P-21) imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement and the appellate order dated 07.11.2023 (Annexure P-23) modifying the punishment from compulsory retirement to demotion to the post of Assistant, are hereby quashed and set aside. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.08.01 13:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8 CWP-22946-2026 9. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to initiate de novo disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner by appointing an Inquiry Officer, in terms of the Government Instructions dated 15.03.2022 (Annexure P-16) within 03 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, if so advised. Further, the disciplinary proceedings shall be concluded in a reasonable dispatch in terms of the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP-9606-2022 titled as Khairati Lal vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 13.10.2025, from the stage of issuance of charge- sheet, in accordance with the provisions of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 2016,. 10. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 27.07.2026 Puneet Chawla Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.08.01 13:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document