CWP-3754 v. E HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Judgment

1. The present writ petition has be /227 has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Consti Constitution of India with a prayer for e writ er for issuance of an appropriate writ or order in th r in the nature of certiorari for quas quashing the impugned order dated

06.11.2020 (A 020 (Annexure P-8) passed by respon respondent No.4 whereby punishment of deduction uction of 3% in monthly pension for ion for four years has been imposed upon the pe the petitioner and also for quashin uashing the impugned order dated

31.12.2020 (A 020 (Annexure P-10) whereby the ap gainst the appeal filed by petitioner against order dated 0 ated 06.11.2020 has been dismissed during issed. Further it is prayed that during PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.06 13:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3754- -2022 2 the pendency ndency of the present writ petition orders tition operation of impugned orders (Annexures P ures P-8 and P-10) may be stayed.

2. Learned counsel for the petition at the etitioner, inter alia, submits that the premises of es of respondent No.6 were inspe f the inspected by the officials of the respondent– –Nigam, and during the course of .6 was rse of checking, respondent No.6 was found indulg indulging in theft of electricity. Conse g loss Consequently, a notice assessing loss to the tune tune of Rs.54,092/- was issued to rieved ued to respondent No.6. Aggrieved thereby, resp , respondent No.6 instituted a ci a civil suit for declaration and mandatory in tory injunction, which came to be dec decree be decreed vide judgment and decree dated 05.02.2

5.02.2020 passed by the learned tria ed trial Court. During the pendency of the said su said suit, the petitioner, who was post ne Sh. as posted as C.A., along with one Sh. Parmod Kum mar, SDO, was served with a char

6. The a charge-sheet dated 18.08.2016. The petitioner su ner submitted a detailed reply denyi denying all the allegations leveled against him. t him. However, finding the reply to ply to be unsatisfactory, respondent No.5 was app as appointed as the Inquiry Officer. U quiry, ficer. Upon conclusion of the inquiry, the petitioner itioner was held responsible for causi to the causing a loss of Rs. 45,112/- to the respondent– –Nigam. Thereafter, a show ca .2019 ow cause notice dated 31.12.2019 (Annexure P ure P-6) was issued to the petition tted a etitioner. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply eply to the said notice; however, t duly ever, respondent No.4, without duly considering t ering the reply, imposed a penalty of ension lty of 3% cut in the monthly pension of the petitio petitioner for a period of four years .2020 r years, vide order dated 06.11.2020 (Annexure P ure P-8). Learned counsel further rther submits that the order dated

06.11.2020 w 020 was never formally communica her, it unicated to the petitioner; rather, it was merely erely conveyed that the impugned o th the ned order had been issued with the PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.06 13:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3754- -2022 3 approval of r al of respondent No.3-Superintending nding Engineer. The statutory appeal preferred by ed by the petitioner was also dismisse ausing ismissed by respondent No.3, causing grave prejudi prejudice to the petitioner. It is conten ed by contended that the grounds raised by the petitione titioner in the appeal were not du learly not duly considered, which clearly demonstrates strates that the appeal was decided in ithout ided in a mechanical manner without proper applic application of mind. Reference has al has also been made to Annexure R- -2 appended w ed with the affidavit dated 12.0 t the 12.02.2026 to contend that the Superintendin ntending Engineer had passed an orde m the n order materially different from the one commun mmunicated to the petitioner. It is fur ase of t is further submitted that the case of the petitioner itioner is squarely covered by the judg

urt in e judgment rendered by this Court in CWP-2316- -2020 titled as Suresh Pal Versu ersus Uttar Haryana Bijli Nigam Limited and and others, decided on 04.03.2025 at the 3.2025. Lastly, it is argued that the disciplinary p inary proceedings themselves are vitia re not e vitiated in law, as the same were not concluded w ded within a reasonable period. The to be . The punishment order came to be passed on 06 on 06.11.2020 (Annexure P-8), i.e. af , i.e. after a lapse of nearly four years from the iss he issuance of the charge-sheet and, s tioner and, significantly, after the petitioner had already ready superannuated on 28.02.2017. S 017. Such inordinate delay, coupled with the fact e fact that the petitioner had retired pr nalty, ired prior to the imposition of penalty, renders the im s the impugned action unsustainable in able in the eyes of law.

3. Per contra, learned counsel f the unsel appearing on behalf of the respondents s dents submits that the punishment or by the ent order was, in fact, passed by the competent/di tent/disciplinary authority. However, e said ever, it is not disputed that the said order of the the punishing authority was never to the never directly communicated to the petitioner by ner by the punishing authority itself; n was itself; rather, the communication was PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.06 13:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3754- -2022 4 issued by th by the Under Secretary, purported f the rportedly with the approval of the punishing au authority. Learned counsel for t s not l for the respondents also does not controvert th vert the position that the decision on th red by n on the statutory appeal preferred by the petitione titioner was likewise not communica hority unicated by the appellate authority itself, but w but was conveyed through the punis , it is punishing authority. However, it is sought to be to be contended that such communic munication, having been issued with due approva proval of the competent/appellate a te the llate authority, does not vitiate the impugned pro ned proceedings.

4. I have heard the learned coun d counsel for the parties and gone through the c h the case file with their able assistanc harge- sistance. It transpires that the charge sheet was se as served upon the petitioner on 18 on 18.08.2016 and the departmental proceedings w dings were not decided in a reasonabl en the sonable despatch especially when the petitioner had ner had retired from service on 28.02. ndent- 28.02.2017. As such, the respondent Nigam has co has conducted the departmental proc w laid l proceedings in violation of law laid down by the y the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prem Prem Nath Bali v. Registrar, High Court of Delhi and another, (2015) 1 5) 16 SCC 415, wherein while emphasizing sizing the duty of the employer to con edings to conclude disciplinary proceedings expeditiously tiously, the Hon’ble Apex Court held a held as under: "31) T 1) Time and again, this Court has e ty of as emphasized that it is the duty of the em e employer to ensure that the depart partmental inquiry initiated against the del e delinquent employee is concluded w ded within the shortest possible time by taki taking priority measures... 33) ...e ) ...every employer (whether State tate or private) must make sincere endeav deavor to conclude the departmen tmental inquiry proceedings once PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.06 13:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3754- -2022 5 initiate itiated against the delinquent employ e by ployee within a reasonable time by giving ving priority to such proceedings an d be s and as far as possible it should be conclu ncluded within six months as an out outer limit. Where it is not possible for the r the employer to conclude due t ue to certain unavoidable causes arising ising in the proceedings within the ti d be the time frame then efforts should be made t ade to conclude within reasonably e ly extended period depending upon the cau e cause and the nature of inquiry but y but not more than a year."

5. A Two Judge Bench of the Hon te of Hon’ble Supreme court in State of Punjab v. Ch v. Chaman Lal Goyal 1995(2) SCC ustice SCC 570 Speaking through Justice B.P Jeevan R evan Reddy observed that, “10. N

0. Now remains the question of dela delay. There is undoubtedly a delay of five five and a half years in serving n is ving the charges. The question is whethe ether the said delay warranted th d the quashing of charges in this case. It is trite to say that such dis t be h disciplinary proceeding must be conduc nducted soon after the irregularitie arities are committed or soon after scovering the irregularities. They ca se of ey cannot be initiated after lapse of consid nsiderable time. It would not be icer. be fair to the delinquent officer. Such d ch delay also makes the task of pro f proving the charges difficult and is thus thus not also in the interest of adm f administration. Delayed initiation of pro proceedings is bound to give room room for allegations of bias, mala es and misuse of power. If th d is f the delay is too long and is unexpl explained, the court may well inte ges. l interfere and quash the charges. But ho t how long a delay is too long alwa f the lways depends upon the facts of the given c ven case. Moreover, if such delay is ay is likely to cause prejudice to the delinqu linquent officer in defending him himself, the enquiry has to be interdi terdicted. Wherever such a plea is ra is raised, the court has to weigh the factors ctors appearing for and against the s n on the said plea and take a decision on the tot e totality of circumstances. In other ther words, the court has to indulge in a p a process of balancing. Now, let s in let us see what are the factors in favour vour of the respondent. ……” PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.06 13:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3754- -2022 6

6. Reliance can also be placed upo y this ed upon the judgment passed by this dded) (emphasis added) Court in CW CWP-9606-2022, titled as Khairati airati Lal Versus State of Haryana and others, d , decided on 13.10.2025. The obse e observations made therein be reads as under:- “(i) The charge sheet must b st be issued within a reasonable period. (ii) The inquiry must be con s of concluded within six months of issuance of the charge sheet. (iii) The Punishing Authority ity shall decide the matter within three months of receipt of the inq e inquiry report. (iv) The Appellate Authority rity shall dispose of the appeal preferred against the decision o on of the Punishing Authority within three months of filing such an ap n appeal. (v) Thus, the entire process cess of disciplinary action must conclude within one year at at the most. Any unexplained or inordinate delay beyond this period shall vitiate proceedings and invite an a n adverse inference against the disciplinary authority (vi) The Administrative Se Secretaries of the concerned departments, as well as hea heads of relevant Boards and Corporations, are also directed cted to conduct a quarterly review to ensure that the prescribed tim d timeline is scrupulously followed and no disciplinary action is unj s unjustly delayed.”

7. The scope of interference in d s very e in disciplinary proceedings is very limited. It is . It is settled law that this Court may t may only exercise its powers under Article 226 o 226 of the Constitution of India wh d in a dia when the findings recorded in a disciplinary inary action are arbitrary, disproporti edural roportionate, tainted with procedural PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.06 13:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3754- -2022 7 illegality, or ty, or manifest prejudice. The Court Court must confine itself to ensuring that the findin findings are justified by the material s were terial on record, the proceedings were conducted in ted in compliance with prescribed pro atural ed procedure and principles of natural justice, and th , and the penalty imposed is proportion ortionate to the misconduct.

8. Further reliance may be placed of the laced on a Three Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supr le Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corpn ora, orpn. Ltd. v. Ashok Kumar Arora (1997) 3 SC 3 SCC 72 while speaking through J de the ugh Justice S.P. Kurdukar made the following obs ing observation, “20. A

0. At the outset, it needs to be me rt in mentioned that the High Court in such c ch cases of departmental enquiri uiries and the findings recorded therein erein does not exercise the powers o The rs of appellate court/authority. The jurisdi risdiction of the High Court in s in such cases is very limited for instanc stance where it is found that the t the domestic enquiry is vitiated becaus cause of non-observance of princip l of nciples of natural justice, denial of reason asonable opportunity; findings are d/or are based on no evidence, and/or the pu e punishment is totally disproportio ortionate to the proved misconduct of an an employee. There is a catena of a of judgments of this Court which had se d settled the law on this topic and i o all nd it is not necessary to refer to all these d ese decisions. Suffice it to refer to a t on to a few decisions of this Court on this to is topic viz. State of A.P. v. S. Sree 25 : ree Rama Rao [(1964) 3 SCR 25 : AIR 19 1963 SC 1723 : (1964) 2 LLJ LJ 150] , State of A.P. v. Chitra Venkat nkata Rao [(1975) 2 SCC 557 : 19 6) 1 : 1975 SCC (L&S) 349 : (1976) 1 SCR 5 R 521] , Corpn. of the City of Na 1) 2 f Nagpur v. Ramchandra [(1981) 2 SCC 7 C 714 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 455 : (198 (1981) 3 SCR 22] and Nelson Motis v. Un Union of India [(1992) 4 SCC 711 993) 711 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 13 : (1993) 23 ATC ATC 382 : AIR 1992 SC 1981] .” PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.06 13:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3754- -2022 8

9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in te of urt in Rama Kant Misra v. State of U.P. (1982) 982) 3 SCC 346 held that the ys be t the punishment must always be commensurat nsurate with the gravity of the offence ffence charged.

10. A Two Judge Bench of the Hon he Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhagat Ram v. State tate of H.P 1983 (2) SCC 442, whil D.A. , while speaking through Justice D.A. Desai observ bserved:- “15. ……It is equally true tha t be that the penalty imposed must be commensurate with the gravity ravity of the misconduct, and that any penalty disproportionate to te to the gravity of the misconduct would be violative of Article 14 14 of the Constitution…..”

11. A Two Judge Bench of the H the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ranjit Thakur v. U v. Union of India 1987 (4) SCC SCC 111, while speaking through Justice M.N. M.N. Venkatachaliah observed that “ t the that “But the sentence has to suit the offence and t and the offender.”

12. The doctrine of proportionalit enalty ionality mandates that any penalty imposed upo d upon a delinquent employee in disc t bear in disciplinary proceedings must bear a just and and reasonable relationship to th to the gravity of the misconduct established a shed against them. A punishment whic ted, or t which is excessive, unwarranted, or significantly cantly disproportionate to the proven ds the proven charges not only offends the canons of fai of fair play and reasonableness but al of the but also constitutes a violation of the fundamental ental right to equality under Article 1 India. rticle 14 of the Constitution of India. The principle inciple further extends to ensure that t red to e that the sanction must be tailored to “suit the off he offence and the offender,” thereb alized thereby requiring an individualized assessment o ent of the nature of the misconduct, t es, the duct, the attendant circumstances, the PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.06 13:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3754- -2022 9 employee’s s ee’s service record, and the absence ing or bsence or presence of extenuating or aggravating f ating factors.

13. However, keeping in view the was a w the fact that the petitioner was a responsible o sible officer and some lapse may ha ot be ay have occurred, it would not be appropriate t riate to quash the entire proceedings. ld be dings. The ends of justice would be met if the pu the punishment is modified to a prop es the a proportionate one, which serves the purpose of ce e of censure without being unduly hars ly harsh.

14. The issue regarding the punishm unishment order and appellate order passed by the by the administrative officer/subordin t they bordinate officer by stating that they have been pa een passed with the approval of the pu ty has e punishing/appellate authority has been laid dow id down by this Court in Suresh Pal’s ations Pal’s case (supra). The observations made therein herein be reads as under:-

8. “On 15.10.2024, this Court ourt in order to streamline various issues involved in the present b ent bunch of cases categorized the cases into different categories ries based upon the subject matter and the breaches as alleged eged. The categorization was as follows:- “Category-A The punishment o ent order and appellate order are passed by the administrative tive officer/subordinate officer by stating that they have been pa n passed with the approval of the punishing/appellate authority. Category-B The punishment o nt order and appellate order are passed by the administrative tive officer/subordinate officer by stating that they have been pa n passed with the approval of the punishing/appellate authority ity wherein authority/subordinate authority who passed the pun punishment/appellate order is the same. Category-C Punishment order der is passed by Under Secretary PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.06 13:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3754- -2022 10 with the approval of the punish nishing authority and the appellate order is passed by the punishing al of shing authority with the approval of appellate authority. Category-D Punishment order is er is passed by the Under Secretary with the approval of the punishi ishing authority i.e. Chief Engineer and the appellate order is passe assed by Chief Engineer. Category-E Punishment orde is passed by the Under Secretary with the approval of th of the punishing authority i.e. Chief Engineer and the appellate ord r. order is passed by Chief Engineer. Apart from the above there is n is no order passed by the appellate authority except for mentioning ted. ing that the same is being rejected. Category-F Order of the com competent/appellate authority not communicated to the petitioner/ d by ner/employee but only informed by the lower administrative staff taff and therefore no reasons are conveyed. Category-G The punishment o nt order and appellate order are passed by the administrative tive officer/subordinate officer by stating that they have been pa n passed with the approval of the punishing/appellate authority. A ed a ty. Appellate authority has passed a non-speaking order, hence, no r no reason assigned at all. Category-H Order on the Repre epresentation/Legal notices decided by lower administrative staff st l of ff stated to be with the approval of the competent authority but no t no order of competent authority supplied. Xxxxxx Category-wise issued are answe swered as under. CATEGORY-C Where punish unishment order is passed by Under Secretary with the approval of l of the punishing authority and the appellate order is passed by th by the punishing authority with the approval of the appellate author thority.

58. In those cases where pun punishment order is passed by the Under Secretary by stating tha f the that it is with the approval of the PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.06 13:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3754- -2022 11 punishing authority and there thereafter the aforesaid punishing authority passes an order on b on behalf of the appellate authority by stating that it is with the app rity, approval of the appellate authority, the same is impermissible and is nd is a nullity in law. CATEGORY-F Where orders ders of the competent/appellate authority are not communicated cated to the petitioner/employee but only informed by the lower ad r administrative staff and therefore no reasons are conveyed.

61. When an administrati trative staff of a department communicates to a delinquent e l or nt employee regarding approval or non-approval of his grievance nce /appeal then the same is not permissible under the law unle unless the actual order which has been passed by the competent/p ty is ent/punishing/appellate authority is communicated to the employe loyee. In other words when the competent /punishing/appellate , the llate authority passes an order, the same has to be communicated to ed to the concerned employee which can be done by way of attac attaching the order alongwith the forwarding letter. In this way an y an employee will be able to know the reasons behind the orders pa rs passed. Conveying of such orders must be done within reasonable er is able time. In case the actual order is not conveyed to the employee, th ee, the same will be deemed to have not been communicated.” Emphasis supplied

15. Accordingly, in view of the ab ces of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the e, the present writ petition is partly partly allowed. The impugned order dated 06.11.2

06.11.2020 (Annexure P-8) imposing of 3% osing a penalty of deduction of 3% from the mo he monthly pension for four years nt of years is modified to the extent of imposing pe ng penalty of deduction of 1% from of the from the monthly pension of the petitioner for for a period of one year. The ord he order dated 31.12.2020 (Annexure PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.06 13:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3754- -2022 12 P-10) is also is also set aside to this extent. Furthe ted to Further, the respondent is directed to revise the pe the pension of petitioner and release t 6 % lease the arrears with interest @ 6 % per annum, , from the date of filing the actual the present petition till its actual realization. The needful be done within a per ving a n a period of six weeks of receiving a certified copy d copy of this order.

16. Pending miscellaneous applicat stands plication(s), if any, shall also stands ed of. disposed of. February 26 P.C 26, 2026 RAR) (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned. : Whether Reportable. : Yes/No Yes/No PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.06 13:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document