JUDGMENT :

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. 

1. Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the impugned order dated 25.02.1991 (Annexure P-7) passed by office of respondent No.4 and impugned order dated 30.06.2025 (Annexure P-11) passed by respondent No.3 and impugned order dated 13.11.2025 (Annexure P-15) passed by the office of respondent No.2. Further a writ of mandamus has been sought, directing the respondents to release the entire 04 increments which has been withheld vide order dated 25.02.1991 (Annexure P-7) (wrongly mentioned as 25.05.1991 in the prayer clause and head-note of the writ petition) passed by the office of respondent No.4 and impugned order dated 30.06.2025 (Annexure P-11) passed by respondent No.3 and impugned order dated 13.11.2025 (Annexure P-15) passed by the office of respondent No.2. Further prayer has been made to direct the respondents to release all the consequential benefits including retiral benefits to the petitioner along with interest @ 18% per annum on delayed payment.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner was initially charge-sheeted on 05.01.1987 under the Punjab State Electricity Board (Punishment & Appeal) Regulation, 1965 as discernible from Annexure P-1. A second charge-sheet dated 09.02.1987 (Annexure P-3) was issued by the competent authority on the same allegations. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 22.08.1990 (Annexure P-5) was issued, which culminated into punishment of stoppage of four increments with future effect, without conducting a regular enquiry as contemplated under the Punjab State Electricity Board (Punishment & Appeal) Regulation, 1965. The petitioner submitted a reply on 30.01.1991 (Annexure P-6), however, the punishment order was passed on 25.02.1991 (Annexure P-7) by the Administrative Officer, who was not the competent authority and the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP-1604-2015, titled as Suresh Kumar vs Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others, decided on 06.05.2024. He further submits that the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal on 05.04.1991, which remained undecided for several years. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing a writ petition i.e. CWP-10547-1999, and in the wake of the statement made by the respondent therein, the same was disposed of on 27.02.2025, with a direction to the respondent to decide the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner. Later on, the Appellate Authority rejected the statutory appeal of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 30.06.2025 (Annexure P-11) and the punishment awarded to the petitioner was reduced to stoppage of three increments with future effect. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision petition dated 14.07.2025 (Annexure P- 13), which was partially allowed on 13.11.2025 (Annexure P-15) and it was decided to further reduce the punishment awarded to the petitioner by stopping three annual increments without future effect. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the order dated 13.11.2025 (Annexure P-15) passed by the Revisional Authority at Page No.109 and submits that it has been duly established and recorded by the Revisional Authority that the charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner and major punishment and enquiry as contemplated under the Punjab State Electricity Board (Punishment & Appeal) Regulation, 1965, have not been conducted. As such, the entire disciplinary proceedings suffers from incurable illegality.

2.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP-9606-2022, titled as Khairati Lal vs State of Haryana and others, decided on 13.10.2025, as well as the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.958 of 2010, titled as Prem Nath Bali vs. Registrar, High Court of Delhi and another, de