Tara Chand hand Kansal itioner v. Board of Dire of Directors, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vi nother ijli Vitran Nigam L
Case Details
CWP-18004 004-2020 1 N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN TH AT CHANDIGA DIGARH NJAB AND HARYANA 212 CWP-18 Date of 18004-2020 ate of Decision: December 10, 2025 Tara Chand hand Kansal itioner .....Petitioner SUS VERSUS Board of Dire of Directors, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vi nother ijli Vitran Nigam Limited and another ...Responden ondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA E HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advoca Advocate for the petitioner. Dhull, dvocate with Mr. Sandeep Dhull Mr. Puneet Jindal, Sr. Advocate for the respondents. ocate ocate with Ms. Fiza Arora, Advocate **** HARPREET REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) 1. The present writ petition has bee of the as been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution tution of India with a prayer for issu rit or or issuance of an appropriate writ or order in the n the nature of certiorari for quashi .2019 quashing the order dated 29.11.2019 (Annexure P ure P-7) vide which the petitioner ha hment has been awarded the punishment of deduction uction of 5% month pension and fu dated nd further to quash the order dated 10.04.2020 ( 020 (Annexure P-9) vide which t d by hich the statutory appeal filed by petitioner wa ner was dismissed and be granted all co d all consequential benefits. PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.18 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-18004 004-2020 2 2. Learned senior counsel for the bmits or the petitioner, inter alia, submits that the pet e petitioner was issued a show- .2019 -cause notice dated 19.08.2019 (Annexure P ure P-5). In response thereto, the petit ments e petitioner sought certain documents essential for al for enabling him to file an effec reply. effective and comprehensive reply. However, th er, the respondents neither supplied ts nor pplied the requested documents nor have they dis ey disputed the fact that such docum by the ocuments were indeed sought by the petitioner. D ner. Despite the non-supply of thes linary f these documents, the disciplinary authority pr ity proceeded to pass the punishm .2019 unishment order dated 29.11.2019 (Annexure P ure P-7), imposing a penalty of deduc oner’s deduction of 5% from the petitioner’s monthly pens ly pension for the remainder of his life ugned his life. The passing of the impugned order withou ithout furnishing the relevant docum g the documents and without providing the petitioner an ner an adequate opportunity to file a d action ile a detailed reply renders the action arbitrary, ille ry, illegal, and in clear violation of th ustice. n of the principles of natural justice. Consequently uently, the impugned order (Annex patent (Annexure P-7) suffers from patent irregularities arities and is liable to be set aside on urther ide on this ground alone. It is further contended tha ded that the appellate authority, while ppeal, while dismissing the statutory appeal, did not consi t consider or discuss the specific groun er and c grounds raised by the petitioner and rejected the a d the appeal in a cryptic and mechanic hanical manner. 3. Learned Senior Counsel further ukesh further submits that one Sh. Mukesh Gupta, who i who is senior to the petitioner, was se rising was served with a charge-sheet arising out of identi identical allegations. In his case, the pted a se, the appellate authority adopted a lenient appro approach and modified the penalt nnual penalty to stoppage of one annual increment w ent without cumulative effect, wh ment. t, which is a minor punishment. However, no er, no such parity or leniency was exte ulting as extended to the petitioner, resulting PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.18 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-18004 004-2020 3 in discrimina riminatory treatment. It is further arg f any er argued that in the absence of any conclusive fi sive finding that the respondent(s)-N l loss, Nigam suffered a financial loss, the punishm nishment of 5% cut in pension and nsion is wholly unwarranted and impermissibl issible in law. Learned senior counsel ase of ounsel further submits that the case of petitioner is s ner is squarely covered by the judgmen
Legal Reasoning
PA- dgment passed by this Court in LPA 3410-2017, G 17, Gurcharan Singh Vs. State of P ed on of Punjab and others, decided on 023. 08.02.2023. 4. Per contra, learned Senior Coun bmits r Counsel for the respondents submits that the proc e procedure prescribed under the app ppeal e applicable Punishment and Appeal Rules was d was duly followed in its true letter ry of letter and spirit. The summary of allegations, a ions, along with the relevant docume , was ocuments and list of witnesses, was duly supplied pplied to the petitioner prior to the pa order. the passing of the punishment order. Therefore, th ore, the ground raised by the petiti ly of petitioner regarding non-supply of documents is ents is factually incorrect and has b eate a has been taken merely to create a façade of vio of violation of the principles of natu r was of natural justice. The petitioner was afforded suff d sufficient time and adequate oppo . It is opportunity to defend himself. It is further conten contended that the argument advanced g that vanced by the petitioner, alleging that his statutory tutory appeal was rejected without con raised ut consideration of the grounds raised therein, is wh , is wholly misplaced. To substantiate Senior ntiate this submission, learned Senior Counsel refe el refers to Annexure R-1 and submi ectors submits that the Board of Directors undertook de ook detailed deliberations and, after c raised after considering all the issues raised by the petitio petitioner in the appeal, arrived at a re ard to at a reasoned decision. With regard to the plea of pa a of parity with his senior, Sh. Mukes at the ukesh Gupta, it is submitted that the competent au tent authority had disagreed with the in the th the Inquiry Officer’s report in the PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.18 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-18004 004-2020 4 said case, rec se, recorded its dissent, and imposed p ect to osed punishment only with respect to one charge. S arge. Subsequently, in appeal, the pena ement e penalty of withholding of increment with cumulat umulative effect was modified to wit ithout to withholding of increment without cumulative e tive effect. It is further submitted that issued ed that while the petitioner was issued a show-cause cause notice for grave misconduct, S sued a duct, Sh. Mukesh Gupta was issued a notice only fo only for minor allegations. Therefore, tment efore, the claim of parity in treatment is unfounded unded and untenable. 5. I have heard the learned cou s and d counsel for both the parties and pursued the r d the records with their able assistance stance. 6. It transpires that respondents ha rd any nts have failed to place on record any conclusive fi sive finding or material to demonstra nduct onstrate that the alleged misconduct resulted in a d in a quantifiable financial loss to t t is a ss to the Nigam. A pension cut is a severe penalt penalty, impacting the financial secu ee for al security of a retired employee for life. In the ab the absence of a finding of actual loss harsh al loss or wrongful gain, such a harsh punishment ment appears prima facie disproport preme roportionate. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Rama Kant Misra v. State of U.P. at the .P. (1982) 3 SCC 346 held that the punishment m ment must always be commensurate ffence urate with the gravity of the offence charged. 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 under ay 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 illegality, or ty, or manifest prejudice. The Court ring Court must confine itself to ensuring that the findin findings are justified by the material s were terial on record, the proceedings were PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.18 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-18004 004-2020 5 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. A Two-Judge Bench of the H S.R. he Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.R. Tewari vs. U s. Union of India, (2013) 6 SCC 60 e B.S C 602, speaking through Justice B.S Chauhan, ma an, made the following observations in ions in this regard: “ 29. 29. In Union of India v. R.K. Shar 002 Sharma [(2001) 9 SCC 592 : 2002 SCC ( C (Cri) 767 : AIR 2001 SC 305 the 3053] , this Court explained the observ servations made in Ranjit Thakur [R dia, ur [Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, (1987) 987) 4 SCC 611 : 1988 SCC (L&S AIR L&S) 1 : (1987) 5 ATC 113 : AIR 1987 87 SC 2386] observing that if th the if the charge was ridiculous, the punish nishment was harsh or strikingly dis rant y disproportionate it would warrant interfe terference. However, the said observ anjit servations in Ranjit Thakur [Ranjit Thakur akur v. Union of India, (1987) 4 S ) 1 : 4 SCC 611 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 1 : (1987) 987) 5 ATC 113 : AIR 1987 SC 238 ean 2386] are not to be taken to mean that a at a court can, while exercising iew, ing the power of judicial review, interfe terfere with the punishment mer the merely because it considers the punish nishment to be disproportionate. It eme It was held that only in extreme cases, ses, which on their face, show pe here w perversity or irrationality, there could uld be judicial review and courts s y on rts should not interfere merely on compa mpassionate grounds.” 9. 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 rded uiries and the findings recorded therein erein does not exercise the powers o The rs of appellate court/authority. The PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.18 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-18004 004-2020 6 jurisdi risdiction of the High Court in s for in such cases is very limited for instanc stance where it is found that the ated t the domestic enquiry is vitiated becaus cause of non-observance of princip al of inciples 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 duct ortionate to the proved misconduct of an an employee. There is a catena of hich 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 R 1963 SC 1723 : (1964) 2 LLJ itra 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 otis (1981) 3 SCR 22] and Nelson Motis v. Unio Union of India [(1992) 4 SCC 711 993) 711 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 13 : (1993) 23 ATC ATC 382 : AIR 1992 SC 1981] .” 10. 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. 11. Accordingly, the present writ p . The it petition is partly allowed. The impugned or ned order dated 29.11.2019 (Annexu lty of nnexure P-7) imposing a penalty of deduction of ion of 5% from the monthly pens f the pension for the remainder of the petitioner’s li ner’s life is modified to the extent of im ion of nt of imposing penalty of deduction of 5% from the m the monthly pension for a period of ate of riod of five (5) years from the date of issuance of e of the original order (i.e., 29. . The ., 29.11.2019) is substituted. The PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.18 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-18004 004-2020 7 consequentia uential order dated 10.04.2020 (Annex to this Annexure P-9) is also set aside to this extent. Furth Further, refund any excess amount if m the unt if it has been recovered from the petitioner wi ner within a period of six weeks of re f this s of receiving a certified copy of this order. 12. Pending miscellaneous applicat stands plication(s), if any, shall also stands
Decision
ed of. disposed of. RAR) (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE December 10 P.C 10, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned. : Whether Reportable. : Yes/No Yes/No PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.18 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document