CWP-13336 v. Uttar Haryan

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : None for the petitioner. . Malika and Ms. Simran Kang, Mr. C.S Bakhshi with Ms. Malik ents. Advocates for the respondents. HARPREET REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been fil of the een filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution tution of India praying for issuance of ce of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing/ shing/setting aside the illegal and arb nts to nd arbitrary action of respondents to an extent in ent in deducting Rs.3,97,680/- from f the from the retiral benefits of the petitioner vi er vide office order dated 31.08.2 er his 1.08.2017 (Annexure P-8) after his retirement an ent and for quashing/setting aside the .2017, de the office orders dated 15.07.2017,

21.07.2017 ( 017 (Annexures P-2 and P-4) respe orders respectively along with office orders dated 28.09.

28.09.2018 (Annexures P-10 and P ellate and P-11) passed by the appellate authority in v ty in violation of law laid down by the on’ble by the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Cou e Court of India in case titled as S.N S.N Mukherjee Vs Union of India PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.14 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-13336 336-2019 2 reported as 1 as 1990 AIR(SC) 1984. Further pr rit in ther praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of ure of mandamus directing the respo unt of respondents to release an amount of Rs.3,97,680/ 7,680/- in favour of petitioner along t with along with 18% market interest with consequentia uential relief.

2. On 10.12.2024, the following or ing order was passed:- “Learned counsel for the r the petitioner submitted that after the retirement of the petition titioner, three charge-sheets were decided against him vide Ann Annexure P-2, Annexure P-3 and Annexure P-4 and thereafter, a er, appeals were also filed and the appellate orders dated 28.09.20 09.2018 are at Annexure P-10 and Annexure P-11. He further su r submitted that a perusal of the aforesaid punishment orders i.e rs i.e. Annexures P-2 to P-4 would the same have ve been communicated by Administrative Officer on beha P’, behalf of the Chief Engineer ‘OP’, UHBVN, Panchkula and the sam e same also states that these orders are issued with the approval P’, oval of the Chief Engineer ‘OP’, UHBVN, Panchkula. He further f the rther submitted that a perusal of the aforesaid appellate orders i.e. A i.e. Annexures P-10 and P-11 would also show that the same have be ve been communicated by the Under Secretary/HR-I (Co-ord) on beh mn, behalf of the Chief Engineer/Admn, UHBVNL, Panchkula and the sa he same also states that these orders are issued with the approval II, oval of the Director/Technical-II, UHBVNL, Panchkula. He also s lso submitted that the petitioner was never supplied the aforesaid o aid orders actually passed by the Chief Engineer ‘OP’, UH UHBVN, Panchkula and Director/Technical-II, UHBVNL VNL, Panchkula. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.14 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-13336 336-2019 3 In view of the above, the d to the respondent-Nigam is directed to produce the original record p rd pertaining to all the aforesaid orders before this Court on the the next date of hearing.”

3. Learned counsel for the respo ion to respondents is not in a position to controvert th ert the fact that the impugned orders 0 and orders (Annexures P-2, P-4, P-10 and P-11) in the in the present case have not been pass ority; n passed by the competent authority; rather, the sai the said orders have been passed by an by an Administrative Officer.

5. Today, there is no representation ntation on behalf of the petitioner. A perusal of the record and th exures and the impugned orders (Annexures P-2 and P-4) 4) indicates that the same have bee trative ve been passed by the Administrative Officer and r and not by the Chief Engineer (re as the eer (respondent No. 3), whereas the appellate ord te orders dated 28.09.2018 (Annexu nnexures P-10 and P-11) have been passed by the by the Under Secretary, which clearly ve not clearly shows that the orders have not been passed b assed by the competent authority.

6. In view of the above, and with on the d without commenting further on the merits of the of the case, the present petition is d on is disposed of and the impugned office orders orders dated 15.07.2017 and 21.07.201 4), as .07.2017 (Annexures P-2 and P-4), as well as the a the appellate orders dated 28.09.201 11), 09.2018 (Annexures P-10 and P-11), are hereby qu eby quashed and set aside. The respon respondents are directed to pass fresh orders strictl strictly following the prescribed pro er the ed procedural framework under the applicable ru ble rules by the competent authority, a ity of , after affording an opportunity of PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.14 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-13336 336-2019 4 being heard heard to the petitioner. The needful sh iod of dful shall be done within a period of three months onths from the date of receipt of a cer f a certified copy of this order.

7. The original record produced b or the uced by the learned counsel for the respondent- -Nigam is returned.

8. Pending miscellaneous applicat pplication(s), if any, shall also stand ed of. disposed of. ry 12, 2026 January 12 P.C RAR) (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasone Whether Reportable. : easoned. : Yes/No Yes/No PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.14 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document