August 22, 2025 v. ……
Case Details
LPA-912-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Krishan Kumar LPA-912-2025 Date of Decision: August 22, 2025 Vs ……..Appellant Home Secretary Haryana and others …………Respondents CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR Present : Appellant in person. Mr. Pankaj Middha, Addl. AG, Haryana. **** ROHIT KAPOOR, J. 1. The present Le*ers Patent Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 23.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP-1804-2025, whereby the writ pe55on filed by the Appellant, seeking quashing of the le*ers dated 07.03.2024 & 02.04.2024 recommending ini5a5on of departmental proceedings, as well as le*er/order dated 02.04.2024 direc5ng ini5a5on of such departmental enquiry, has been
Decision
disposed off. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the essen5al facts required to be no5ced are that vide le*er dated 07.03.2024, respondent No.8 recommended ini5a5on of departmental enquiry against the appellant on the allega5ons of gross negligence in not handing back the case file of FIR No.299 dated 30.05.2019 registered at Police Sta5on Sohna, Gurugram. It was alleged that the appellant was handed over the case file during his pos5ng at the Police Sta5on in ques5on from 08.10.2022 to 14.02.2023, for the purpose of inves5ga5on. A@er his transfer to Police Sta5on Sector-65, he was asked several 5mes to hand over the charge of the file in ques5on and other files, however, he SURESH KUMAR 2025.09.12 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-912-2025 2 refused to do the needful. Other allega5ons regarding not comple5ng the file with the necessary documents etc., were also made. 3. A@er the receipt of the said le*er, respondent No. 5 vide le*er dated 02.04.2024 sought permission for ini5a5on of departmental enquiry from respondent No. 4. A@er examining the allega5ons against the appellant, respondent no. 4 was prima facie of the view that the departmental enquiry was required to be ini5ated against the appellant, and order dated 02.04.2024 was passed to that effect. Admi*edly, the appellant par5cipated in the enquiry proceedings and his statement was recorded on 27.04.2024 and as per the appellant, all the original documents which were alleged to be missing, were produced by him. During the pendency of the departmental enquiry, the appellant filed CWP No. 1804 of 2025, invoking the extra ordinary jurisdic5on of this Court under Ar5cle 226 of the Cons5tu5on of India, challenging the ini5a5on of the departmental ac5on against him vide impugned le*ers and order dated 02.04.2024. 4. It was inter-alia alleged in the pe55on that the en5re ac5on is vi5ated since the same is actuated in malice and the appellant was being vic5mized for honestly inves5ga5ng the case involving influen5al people. It was also alleged that the departmental enquiry had been ini5ated with the intent to withhold the re5ral benefits of the appellant, who re5ed on 30.04.2024 and was facing immense financial hardship on account the arbitrary ac5on of the authori5es. By referring to judicial precedents wherein it was held that departmental proceedings cannot be kept pending indefinitely, it was stated that despite the re5rement of the appellant, the departmental proceedings were kept pending and no decision was being taken by respondent No.4. 5. The learned Single Judge disposed of the pe55on filed by the appellant, vide order dated 23.01.2025, which is reproduced as under:- “1. The pe(cid:18)(cid:18)oner through instant pe(cid:18)(cid:18)on under Ar(cid:18)cles 226/227 of the Cons(cid:18)tu(cid:18)on of India is seeking se ng aside of departmental inquiry le#er dated 07.03.2024 (Annexure P-1) and consequent proceedings. SURESH KUMAR 2025.09.12 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-912-2025 3 2. On being pointed out by this Court that departmental proceedings are s(cid:18)ll pending and no final order has been passed, Mr. Navkesh Singh Goraya, Advocate submits that pe(cid:18)(cid:18)oner has already re(cid:18)red, thus, pending departmental proceedings are causing irreparable loss and his grievance at this stage would be redressed, if the respondents are directed to complete departmental proceedings in a (cid:18)me bound manner. 3. Faced with this, Mr. Raman Sharma, Addl. A.G., Haryana, who on advance no(cid:18)ce is present in Court, submits that Disciplinary Authority would conclude departmental proceedings within 3 months from today. 4. Counsel for pe(cid:18)(cid:18)oner agrees to the aforesaid arrangement. 5. In the wake of statement of both sides, the present pe(cid:18)(cid:18)on stands disposed of. 6. It is made clear that pe(cid:18)(cid:18)oner, if permissible by law would be released provisional pension within 4 weeks’ from today and all re(cid:18)ral dues on conclusion of departmental proceedings subject to its outcome.” 6. Aggrieved from the aforemen5oned order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant has preferred the present Le*ers Patent Appeal. 7. Perusal of the grounds raised in the appeal would show that the same are re-itera5on of the grounds raised in the writ pe55on. The primary grievance of the appellant is that the learned Single Judge should have allowed the pe55on instead of direc5ng the disciplinary authority to conclude the departmental proceedings within a period of three months. 8. During the pendency of the present Appeal, a status report has been filed by the respondents, wherein it has been disclosed that the departmental enquiry stands concluded and respondent No. 4 vide its order of punishment dated 22.05.2025 has ordered to withhold 2% pension of the appellant, for five months, with immediate effect, under applicable provisions of Rule 12(1) of the Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules 2016 and other relevant disciplinary regula5ons. A copy of the order dated 22.05.2025 has been placed on record as Annexure R-2. It is further men5oned that in compliance of the order dated 23.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP-1804-2025, all re5ral benefits including provisional pension, except gratuity and commuta5on, have SURESH KUMAR 2025.09.12 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-912-2025 4 already been disbursed to the appellant. It is further stated that since the departmental enquiry against the appellant has been decided vide order dated 22.05.2025, accordingly the pending re5ral benefits i.e. gratuity and commuta5on, will be released to the appellant in accordance with the rules at the earliest. 9. 10. We have heard the appellant, who is present in person. Apart from repea5ng the allega5ons as contained in the writ pe55on, the appellant has failed to answer as to how any cause of ac5on survives in the present appeal a@er conclusion of the departmental proceedings, which stand culminated a@er the passing of the punishment order dated 22.05.2025. The appellant does not dispute that there is a remedy of statutory appeal against the said order. 11. In view thereof, nothing survives in the present appeal, which has become infructuous, and is dismissed accordingly. (ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA) (ROHIT KAPOOR) JUDGE JUDGE August 22, 2025 ajaysharma Whether speaking/reasoned. : Whether Reportable. : Yes/No Yes/No SURESH KUMAR 2025.09.12 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document