CWP-24547-2026 (O&M) 1 of 12 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 115 CWP-24547-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 07.08.2026 Jai Singh ...Pe00oner(s) Vs. State of Haryana and others ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Ravinder Malik, Advocate for the peoner. Mr. Harish Kumar Nain, D.A.G., Haryana. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. Present Civil Writ Peon under Arcles 226/227 of the Constuon of India has been ,led by the peoner for the issuance of appropriate writ order or direcon especially in the nature of cerorari for quashing the Charge Sheet dated 30.01.2024 (Annexure P-10), Inquiry Report dated 22.07.2024 (Annexure P-15) and order dated 09.02.2026 (Annexure P-18) passed by respondent no. 3 being illegal, arbitrary without any evidence on record against the principle of natural jusce; And further issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus, for direcng the respondents to reinstate/allow the peoner to join his services as a Gram Sachiv and grant all consequenal bene,ts during the suspension period w.e.f. due date along with interest @ 18% per annum ll actual payment within some spulated period in the interest of jusce; And for staying the operaon of the Charge Sheet dated 30.01.2024 (Annexure DIVYANSHI 2026.08.12 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24547-2026 (O&M) 2 of 12 P-10) Inquiry Report dated 22.07.2024 (Annexure P-15) and order dated 09.02.2026 (Annexure P-18) during the pendency of the present peon. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the peoner had joined services in the respondent-Department as Gram Sachiv on 16.08.2012. As per the Instrucons dated 12.05.2015 (Annexure P-1) and as per Rule 6(2) of the Punjab Village Common Land Rule, 1964, the amount received on account of lease of Shamlat land is to be deposited immediately into the bank account of the concerned Gram Panchayat. As the tenure of the Gram Panchayats was going to expire on 23.02.2021, accordingly, vide order dated 12.02.2021 (Annexure P-2), the respondent-Government appointed respondent No.5/Block Development and Panchayat OCcer Bara Guda, District Sirsa, Haryana as Administrator of such Gram Panchayats whose tenure was expiring, falling in their respecve jurisdicon. 3. During this me, Shamlat land of the village Panchayat under the jurisdicon of respondent No.5 was to be given on lease in the year 2021-2022 and 2022-2023. Some of the said Panchayats were under the charge of the peoner. List of such village Panchayats, whose Shamlat land was to be leased out under the jurisdicon of respondent No.5 for the aforesaid years is on record as Annexures P-3 and P-4 respecvely. 4. Learned counsel for the peoner inter alia submits that as per the Form No. II of Shamlat Land Lease Register (Annexure P-5), the security money relang to lease of Shamlat Deh land, was to be deposited DIVYANSHI 2026.08.12 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24547-2026 (O&M) 3 of 12 by the parcipants in the presence and chairmanship of respondent No.5. However, for the reasons best known to respondent No.5, Shamlat land could not be leased in the years 2021-2022 and 2022-2023. Hence, no amount is menoned in the Lease Register, nor names of lease holders are menoned. It is submiEed that it is for this reason that Shamlat Deh Land Lease Register (Annexure P-5), does not reFect any entry regarding receipt of the lease amount for the two village Panchayats nor the details of any lease holder are menoned. 5. Moreover, in terms of Instrucons (Annexure P-1), receipt of amount, if any, was to be deposited in the account of the village Panchayat by the concerned Village Sarpanch with the assistance of the peoner and under supervision of respondent No.5. Yet, respondent No.4 wrote a leEer dated 25.09.2023 (Annexure P-6) to the Deputy Commissioner, Sirsa inmang that receipt of the Shamlat land of concerned villages had not been deposited in the account of the said village Panchayat; and neither entered into the cash book of the concerned village Panchayat; and therefore, it appears that peoner had misappropriated amount of Rs.24,71,700/-. 6. Pursuant thereto, peoner was placed under suspension vide order dated 06.11.2023 (Annexure P-7). Peoner had made a Representaon dated 06.02.2024 (Annexure P-8). Vide order dated 13.02.2024 (Annexure P-9), respondent No.3 had directed respondent No.5 to clear the enre issue and iniate appropriate legal acon against DIVYANSHI 2026.08.12 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24547-2026 (O&M) 4 of 12 the peoner. Consequenally, peoner came to be charge-sheeted under Rule 7 of Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 2016 (hereinaHer referred to as ‘Rules, 2016’) vide Charge Sheet dated 30.01.2024 and order dated 11.03.2024 (Annexures P-10 and P-11 respecvely). 7. Even two FIRs bearing FIR No. 11 dated 15.02.2024 under Secons 409 and 120-B IPC (Secons 420, 477, 477-A of IPC added later on) at Police Staon Baragudha, District Sirsa; and FIR No. 91 dated 17.06.2024 under Secons 409, 120-B of IPC at Police Staon Baragudha, District Sirsa were registered against the peoner in which the peoner has been granted bail. ThereaHer, inquiry was conducted against the peoner in which vide Inquiry Report dated 22.07.2024 (Annexure P-15), it has been found that charges made against the peoner are proven. ThereaHer vide leEer dated 09.02.2026 (Annexure P-18), respondent No.3 has sought approval from respondent No.2 for terminang services of the peoner on the basis of the above said Charge Sheet. 8. Learned counsel for the peoner submits that the impugned acon is unsustainable as respondent no. 4 has concluded the Inquiry Report dated 22.07.2024 without appoinng any Presenng OCcer on behalf of the Department and nor allowing the peoner to present his case himself or through a Counsel and by puMng the queson to the management witnesses himself. Furthermore, the Inquiry OCcer has proceeded to record the statement of the peoner, ,rstly and DIVYANSHI 2026.08.12 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24547-2026 (O&M) 5 of 12 thereaHer recorded the statement of management which is against the procedure prescribed under the Rules 2016. The Inquiry OCcer himself has worked as a prosecutor and the judge at the same me which is not permissible as per seEled principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 9. It is further submiEed by learned counsel for the peoner that peoner has speci,cally replied during the inquiry that there is no entry of the lease of Shamlat land in the register specially when the same was conducted by SEPO Harjeet Singh which is admiEed by the management witness also. Despite the above peoner has been held guilty of the charges levelled against him in above said Chargesheet vide Inquiry Report dated 22.07.2024 (Annexure P-15). It is further submiEed that Inquiry Report was not supplied to the peoner by the respondents and the same has been obtained by the peoner under the Right to Informaon Act. 10. Learned counsel for the peoner submits that peoner has ,led reply (Annexure P-16) to the Inquiry Report clearly stang that the Inquiry OCcer has not conducted the inquiry in fair manner and has violated the Rules. There is no evidence to sustain the charge of misappropriaon against the peoner as per the Chargesheet. The Inquiry OCcer has wrongly examined him ,rst and examined the management witness later in violaon of the procedure prescribed under DIVYANSHI 2026.08.12 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24547-2026 (O&M) 6 of 12 the Rule. In the absence of any entry of lease in the Lease Register for the relevant year, no charges are made out against him. 11. In support, learned counsel has relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ram Lakhan Sharma (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 1085259. He accordingly prays that the present Writ Peon be allowed; and prays “For issuance of appropriate writ order or Direcon especially in the nature of cerorari for quashing the charge sheet dated 30.01.2024 (Annexure P-10) inquiry report dated 22.07.2024 (Annexure P-15) and order dated 09.02.2026 (Annexure P-18) passed by Respondent No. 3 being illegal, arbitrary without any evidence on record against the principle of natural jusce.” 12. Per contra, learned State Counsel has opposed submissions advanced on behalf of the peoner and submiEed that under Arcle 226, it is open to this Court to only examine the process of Inquiry. In the present case, the peoner has not been able to establish any Faw in the Inquiry process. The contenon of the peoner that peoner was not granted opportunity to examine Mr. Harjeet Singh, is also contrary to the record. He accordingly prays for dismissal of the present Writ Peon. 13. No other argument has been raised on behalf of learned counsel for the pares. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case ,le in minute detail. I ,nd no merit in the submissions of the peoner. 14. In the present case, it is established from the record that the Inquiry OCcer has examined every aspect of the maEer in detail. A DIVYANSHI 2026.08.12 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24547-2026 (O&M) 7 of 12 perusal of the Inquiry Report (Annexure P-15) and the record, show that the process of law as well as the principles of natural jusce have been duly adhered to. As such, it is not open to this Court to interfere. 15. The peoner has repeatedly made imputaons against the Inquiry OCcer. However, the same are not borne out from the record. The peoner has contended that the peoner was not allowed to cross- examine Harjeet Singh who had to conduct the inquiry. The said contenon of the peoner is totally false and incorrect as a perusal of the Inquiry Report (Annexure P-15) shows that (at page 60 of the present paper-book), statement of Sh. Harjeet Singh, Social Educaon and Panchayat OCcer, Bara Guda was recorded; whereaHer peoner has conducted the cross-examinaon of send Harjeet Singh. When confronted with this, learned counsel for the peoner has submiEed that in actual fact, the said cross-examinaon was conducted by Inquiry OCcer himself, but the name of the peoner has been falsely put therein. Needless to say, there is no merit in the said contenon. 16. It is established posion in law that in disciplinary proceedings, High Court cannot act as Second Court of First Appeal. In holding as above, I rely upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. P.Gunasekaran (2015) 2 Supreme Court Cases 610, wherein, it is held as under: - "13. Despite the well-se1led posion, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, re-appreciang DIVYANSHI 2026.08.12 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24547-2026 (O&M) 8 of 12 even the evidence before the enquiry o4cer. The 6nding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrave Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of rst appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Arcles 226/227 of the Constuon of India, shall not venture into reappreciaon of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether: (a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority; (b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf; (c) there is violaon of the principles of natural jusce in conducng the proceedings; (d) the authories have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some consideraons extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case; (e) the authories have allowed themselves to be in;uenced by irrelevant or extraneous consideraons; (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 admi1ed inadmissible evidence which in;uenced the 6nding; (i) the 6nding of fact is based on no evidence. 13. Under Arcles 226/227 of the Constuon 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 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 6ndings can be based. (vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be; DIVYANSHI 2026.08.12 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24547-2026 (O&M) 9 of 12 (vii) go into the proporonality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience." (Emphasis added) 17. The view taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.Gunasekaran’s case supra has been followed by this Court in Sa0sh Kumar vs. State of Punjab and others, decided on 14.10.2025, Neutral Cita0on No. 2025: PHHC: 141828. Therefore, intervenon of this Court in disciplinary proceedings is warranted only where ,ndings are arbitrary, disproporonate, procedural illegality or manifest prejudice. Case of the peoner does not meet any of the said requirements. 18. Reference is made to another judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Purshutam Goel vs. State of Haryana (Punjab And Haryana); Law Finder Doc Id # 2852822. The relevant paras of the said judgment are as under: - “7. The scope of interference in disciplinary proceedings is very limited. It is se1led law that this Court may only exercise its powers under Arcle 226 of the Constuon of India when the 6ndings recorded in a disciplinary acon are arbitrary, disproporonate, tainted with procedural illegality, or manifest prejudice. The Court must con6ne itself to ensuring that the 6ndings are jus6ed by the material on record, the proceedings were conducted in compliance with prescribed procedure and principles of natural jusce, and the penalty imposed is proporonate to the misconduct. 8. Further reliance may be placed on a Three Judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. v. Ashok DIVYANSHI 2026.08.12 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24547-2026 (O&M) 10 of 12 Kumar Arora, (1997) 3 SCC 72 while speaking through Jusce S.P. Kurdukar made the following observaon, "20. At the outset, it needs to be menoned that the High Court in such cases of departmental enquiries and the 6ndings recorded therein does not exercise the powers of appellate court/authority. The jurisdicon of the High Court in such cases is very limited for instance where it is found that the domesc enquiry is viated because of non-observance of principles of natural jusce, denial of reasonable opportunity; 6ndings are based on no evidence, and/or the punishment is totally disproporonate to the proved misconduct of an employee. There is a catena of judgments of this Court which had se1led the law on this topic and it is not necessary to refer to all these decisions. Su4ce it to refer to a few decisions of this Court on this topic viz. State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao [(1964) 3 SCR 25 : AIR 1963 SC 1723 : (1964) 2 LLJ 150], State of A.P. v. Chitra Venkata Rao [(1975) 2 SCC 557 : 1975 SCC (L&S) 349 : (1976) 1 SCR 521], Corpn. of the City of Nagpur v. Ramchandra [(1981) 2 SCC 714 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 455 : (1981) 3 SCR 22] and Nelson Mos v. Union of India [(1992) 4 SCC 711 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 13 : (1993) 23 ATC 382 : AIR 1992 SC 1981]." 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rama Kant Misra v. State of U.P. (1982) 3 SCC 346 held that the punishment must always be commensurate with the gravity of the oEence charged.” 20. Reference is also made to another judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Mandeep Singh v. Punjab Gramin Bank, (Punjab And Haryana): Law Finder Doc Id # 2867183, decided on 26.02.2026; wherein it is held as under:- “Judicial review in disciplinary proceedings is limited to examining procedural compliance, adherence to principles of DIVYANSHI 2026.08.12 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24547-2026 (O&M) 11 of 12 natural jusce, and proporonality of punishment. High Courts cannot reappreciate evidence or sit as appellate authories in disciplinary ma1ers.” The relevant paras of the said judgment are as under:- “5. Indeed this Court has been called upon to examine the validity of disciplinary proceedings and the consequent punishment imposed upon the peoner. The scope of judicial interference in disciplinary proceedings is very narrow and instances where it can happen has been categorically spulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. XX XX XX 8. It is se1led law that this Court may only exercise its powers under Arcle 226 of the Constuon of India when the 6ndings recorded in a disciplinary acon are arbitrary, tainted with procedural illegality, or manifest prejudice. This Court cannot re appreciate the ma1er on merits and substute the conclusion drawn by the concerned authority with its own. A High Court cannot sit in appeal over decisions taken in disciplinary proceedings. The Court must con6ne itself to ensuring that the 6ndings are jus6ed by the material on record, the proceedings were conducted in compliance with prescribed procedure and principles of natural jusce, and the penalty imposed is proporonate to the misconduct.” 21. As in the above case of Mandeep Singh Supra, even in the present case, the “peoner has failed to demonstrate that the inquiry was conducted in violaon of natural jusce, or that the 6ndings are based on no evidence, or that the punishment is shockingly DIVYANSHI 2026.08.12 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24547-2026 (O&M) 12 of 12 disproporonate and thus perverse. The submissions made by the peoner essenally seek re appreciaon of evidence, which is beyond the scope of judicial review in writ jurisdicon.” 22. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide various judgments has seEled the Law that departmental proceeding as well as criminal proceeding can run concurrently and grounds etc. of both the proceedings have no bearing on each other. In the present case, the peoner has been granted bail in the above said two FIRs vide orders dated 20.05.2025 (Annexure P-12) and 07.03.2025 (Annexure P-13). Criminal trial is enrely diQerent from departmental proceedings. 23. The aforesaid judgment in case of Ram Lakhan Sharma (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the peoner is disnguishable on facts and law and peoner cannot derive any bene,t from the said judgment. 24. Keeping in view the above factual and legal posion, the present Writ Peon stands dismissed. 07.08.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA) Divyanshi JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No DIVYANSHI 2026.08.12 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document