212 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 03.02.2026 MANGAT RAM ....Petitioner Versus PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Sandeep Bansal, Advocate with Mr. Sameer Kumar, Advocate and Ms. Nishtha, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Kannan Malik, Advocate for the respondents.

****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR , J (Oral):

CM-4633-2025

1. The present application has been filed under Section 151 of CPC for placing on record the replication to the written statement on behalf of respondents.

2. In view of the grounds mentioned in the application, the same is allowed, as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions. Replication is ordered to be taken on record.

3. Registry is directed to place the same at an appropriate place in the paper book.

Main case

4. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari seeking for quashing of impugned order dated 28.09.2021 (Annexure P-8) whereby the petitioner was denied gratuity till conclusion of disciplinary proceedings and, a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to drop the disciplinary proceedings intiated against the petitioner, being totally contrary to the applicable provisions of Rule 2.2(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1970, Vol.II and as per judgment titled as Baldhir Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others 2009 (1) RSJ 351, as quoted in the aforesaid impugned order itself. Further a prayer is made for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to make payment of complete Gratuity along with penal interest to the petitioner at the earliest.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that the petitioner retired on 30.04.2020. On the eve of his retirement, there was no pending charge sheet against the petitioner. The charge sheet dated 03.11.2020 was conveyed/handed over to the petitioner on 07.01.2021. Nothing, it refers to alleged misconduct pertaining to the year 2011, making the impugned speaking order dated 28.09.2021 (Annexure P-8) is unsustainable in the eyes of law.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents-

Corporation submits that a show cause notice was issued on 12.08.2013.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the impugned speaking order (Annexure P-8) and submits that it contains no mention of any show cause notice, rather it has been said that a letter No.7703 dated 12.08.2013 (Annexure P-3) has been sent to the petitioner, seeking clarification from him regarding the excess payment made to pensioners and employees. Further, on 13.03.2014, disciplinary action was proposed against the concerned official, responsible for making wrong payments to the employees/pensioners. Learned counsel for the petitioner further refers to the reply filed by respondents and submits that in para 10, the respondents have taken a specific stand that admittedly the draft charge sheet was prepared on 18.10.2016, much before the date of retirement of the petitioner. However, the fact regarding issuance of charge sheet on

03.11.2020 after the retirement of the petitioner remain uncontroverted.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the reliance made by the petitioner to Rule 2.2(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1970, Vol.II is totally misplaced as a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 12.08.2013. However, he could not controvert the fact that charge sheet was issued on 03.11.2020 with regards to misconduct pertaining to the year 2011 and 2012, whereas the petitioner retired on 30.04.2020. He further submits that the disciplinary proceeding have been concluded resulting in passing of punishment order against the petitioner. As such, the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing a statutory appeal against the said punishment order.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their a